Southwest Airlines appeal filing

260 Pages·2016·4.13 MB·English

Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
No. 16-10051

In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit

City of Dallas,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.

Delta Air Lines, Inc.,
Defendant/Appellee,
v.

Southwest Airlines Co.,
Defendant/Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
Honorable Ed Kinkeade, United States District Judge

BRIEF OF APPELLANT

Russell S. Post Eric W. Pinker, P.C.
BECK REDDEN LLP David S. Coale
1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500 Kent D. Krabill
Houston, Texas 77010 Britta Erin Stanton
LYNN PINKER COX & HURST, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, Texas 75201

Attorneys for Appellant
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
The undersigned counsel of record certifies that the following listed
persons and entities as described in the fourth sentence of 5th Cir. R. 28.2.2
have an interest in the outcome of this case. Those representations are
made in order that the judges of this Court may evaluate possible
disqualification or recusal.
1. Defendant-Appellee: Delta Air Lines, Inc.

2. Counsel for Defendant- William B. Dawson
Appellee: Ashley E. Johnson
Russ Falconer
Karl Nelson
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP
2100 McKinney Avenue, Suite 1100
Dallas, TX 75201-6912

3. Plaintiff-Appellee: City of Dallas

4. Counsel for Plaintiff- Peter B. Haskel
Appellee: Christopher J. Caso
Jennifer A. Brissette
Stacy Jordan Rodriguez
Matthew K. Saliba
Petrina L. Thompson
Dallas City Attorney’s Office
1500 Marilla Street, Room 7BN
Dallas, TX 75201-6622

-i-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
Peter Kirsch
Nate Hunt
Kaplan Kirsch & Rockwell
1675 Broadway, Suite 2300
Denver, CO 80202

5. Defendant-Appellant: Southwest Airlines Co.

6. Counsel for Defendant- Eric W. Pinker, P.C.
Appellant: David S. Coale
Kent D. Krabill
Britta Erin Stanton
Lynn Pinker Cox & Hurst, LLP
2100 Ross Avenue, Suite 2700
Dallas, TX 75201

Russell S. Post
Beck Redden LLP
1221 McKinney St., Suite 4500
Houston, Texas 77010

7. Defendant in Trial Court Virgin America Inc.
Not Party to Appeal:

8. Counsel: John R. Robertson
Hogan Lovells LLP
555 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20004

Barry Barnett
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 5100
Dallas, TX 75202

9. Defendant in Trial Court United Airlines, Inc.
Not Party to Appeal:

-ii-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
10. Counsel: John K. Grantham
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP
1111 Louisiana St., Floor 44
Houston, TX 77002

J. Eric Gambrell
Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld
LLP
1700 Pacific Avenue, Suite 4100
Dallas, TX 75201-4675

11. Defendant in Trial Court Seaport Airlines, Inc.
Not Party to Appeal:

12. Counsel: John R. Robertson
Hogan Lovells LLP
555 13th St. NW
Washington, DC 20004

Barry Barnett
Susman Godfrey L.L.P.
901 Main Street, Suite 5100
Dallas, TX 75202

13. Defendant in Trial Court United States Department of
Not Party to Appeal: Transportation

14. Counsel: David M. Glass
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Room 7200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

-iii-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 5 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
Susan K. Ullman
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.,
Room 7146
Washington, DC 20530-0001

15. Defendant in Trial Court The Federal Aviation
Not Party to Appeal: Administration

16. Counsel: David M. Glass
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
20 Massachusetts Avenue NW,
Room 7200
Washington, DC 20530-0001

Susan K. Ullman
Senior Trial Counsel
U.S. Department of Justice
Civil Division
Federal Programs Branch
20 Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.,
Room 7146
Washington, DC 20530-0001

17. Defendant in Trial Court American Airlines, Inc.
Not Party to Appeal:

-iv-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 6 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
18. Counsel: Michael V. Powell
C. Scott Jones
Locke Lord LLP
2200 Ross Avenue, Suite 2200
Dallas, TX 75201

/s/ Eric W. Pinker
Eric W. Pinker, P.C.
Attorney of Record for Southwest Airlines Co.

-v-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 7 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT
This case presents an important issue about the ability of Southwest
Airlines to fully use its leasehold rights at Dallas Love Field without
interference from Delta Air Lines, who has no lease rights there. Southwest
believes that oral argument would help the Court in its review of that
significant issue and the relevant record.

-vi-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 8 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Identity of Parties and Counsel ............................................................................. i 
Statement Regarding Oral Argument ................................................................ vi 
Table of Contents ................................................................................................. vii 
Table of Authorities .............................................................................................. ix 
Jurisdictional Statement ..................................................................................... xiv 
Issues Presented .................................................................................................. xvi 
Statement of the Case ............................................................................................. 1 
A.  History of Southwest and Love Field .............................................. 1 
B.  Southwest Preferentially Leases Sixteen Love Field Gates .......... 7 
C.  Southwest Preferentially Leases Two More Gates ...................... 11 
D.  Southwest’s Post-Wright Amendment Expansion ...................... 12 
E.  Delta’s Request for Accommodation ............................................. 14 
F.  Procedural Background ................................................................... 17 
Summary of Argument ........................................................................................ 20 
Standard of Review ............................................................................................... 24 
Argument ............................................................................................................... 24 
A.  The district court erred in finding that Delta had a
substantial likelihood of success on its claims. ............................ 24 
1.  As a matter of law, Delta is not a third-party
beneficiary of the Lease. ....................................................... 25 
a)  The Lease makes no express statement of intent
to benefit any third party, including Delta. ............ 26 
b)  The district court distorted the text and structure
of Section 4.06.F. .......................................................... 31 
-vii-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 9 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
c)  The district court’s interpretation is contrary
to key principles of federal aviation law
from which the accommodation provision of
the Lease arise. ............................................................. 36 
d)  Delta’s declaratory judgment claim does not
let it create rights that do not exist. ........................... 40 
2.  As a matter of law, Southwest did not breach any
accommodation obligation under the Lease. ..................... 40 
a)  Unambiguous Lease terms control. .......................... 40 
b)  Southwest did not breach the unambiguous
terms of the Lease. ...................................................... 44 
c)  At the very least, the district court erred as a
matter of law by imposing a perpetual
accommodation, without regard to Southwest’s
right to expand service. ............................................... 45 
B.  The City’s declaratory judgment claim does not create a
basis for injunctive relief. ................................................................ 50 
C.  The district court erred by not granting a preliminary
injunction to Southwest. .................................................................. 53 
Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 59 
Certificate of Service ............................................................................................. 62 
Certificate of Compliance .................................................................................... 63 

-viii-
Case: 16-10051 Document: 00513477354 Page: 10 Date Filed: 04/22/2016
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases 
41 North 73 West, Inc. v. DOT, 408 Fed. App’x. 393 (2d Cir. 2010) ................. 39
Aguilar v. Trujillo, 162 S.W.3d 839 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005,
pet. denied)......................................................................................................... 54
Airborne Tactical Advantage C. v. Peninsula Airport Comm’n,
No. 05-CV-0166, 2006 WL 753016 (E.D. Va. Mar. 21, 2006) ....................... 39
Al Rushaid v. National Oilwell Varco, Inc., 757 F.3d 416
(5th Cir. 2014) .............................................................................................. 43, 49
Ali v. Quarterman, 607 F.3d 1046 (5th Cir. 2010) ............................................. xiii
Allan v. Nersesova, 307 S.W.3d 564 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2010, no pet.) .... 25, 29
Anadarko Petroleum Corp. v. Williams Alaska Petroleum, Inc.,
737 F.3d 966 (5th Cir. 2013) .............................................................................. 43
Aransas Project v. Shaw, 775 F.3d 641(5th Cir. 2014) ......................................... 24
Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Center, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1378 (2015) .................. 38
Astra USA v. Santa Clara County, 563 U.S. 110 (2011) ................................ 37, 39
Bank of New York v. Chesapeake 34771 Land Trust, 456 S.W.3d 628
(Tex. App.—El Paso 2015, pet. denied) .......................................................... 35
Beathard Joint Venture v. W. Hous. Airport Corp., 72 S.W.3d 426
(Tex. App.—Texarkana 2002, no pet.) ............................................... 53, 54, 55
Bluefield Water Ass'n, Inc. v. City of Starkville, 577 F.3d 250
(5th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................................................... 24
Brown v. Fullenweider, 52 S.W.3d 169 (Tex. 2001) (per curiam) ....................... 32
Bynum v. Prudential Resid. Serv., 129 S.W.3d 781 (Tex. App.—
Houston [1st District.] 2004, no pet.) .............................................................. 50
-ix-