Alaska Air, Delta must face lawsuit over Seattle airport pollution
Adds comments from airlines in paragraph 4
By Nate Raymond
Nov 26 (Reuters) -Alaska Air Group ALK.N and Delta Air Lines DAL.N have lost their bid to dismiss a lawsuit alleging that emissions from their aircraft at Seattle-Tacoma International Airport are responsible for a deadly mixture of toxic pollution.
U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Seattle on Monday rejected the airlines' arguments that federal law governing airline routes and clean air standards preempted state-law claims pursued by individuals who live near the airport.
Steve Berman, a lawyer for the plaintiffs at Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, in an email called the ruling "a first step toward environmental justice for this class."
Delta in a statement said it was "carefully reviewing the court's ruling and next steps." Alaska Air declined to comment.
The plaintiffs in the proposed class action are seeking to represent home owners and residents living within a five-mile radius of Sea-Tac Airport in what their lawyers call the facility's "Contamination Zone."
The area has more than 300,000 residents and includes the Seattle suburbs of Burien, Des Moines, SeaTac and Tukwila. The plaintiffs say that in that zone, rates of cancer, heart disease and chronic respiratory disease are higher than in nearby areas.
In a lawsuit filed in April 2023, the residents alleged that pollution produced by the two main airlines at Sea-Tac, Alaska and Delta, included carbon monoxide, lead and particulate matter and was linked to hundreds of deaths every year.
They said the pollution was pervasive enough that soot-like sediment would build up on their roofs, yards and cars and that the communities that were harmed were disproportionately low income and racial minorities.
Their lawsuit named as defendants the airlines and the Port of Seattle, which owns the airport, and asserted claims under Washington state law for negligence, battery, continuing intentional trespass and public nuisance.
The airlines and port argued those state-law claims were barred because the Federal Aviation Administration and the Environmental Protection Agency alone have the authority to regulate flight paths and runway locations, the design of aircrafts and their engines, and corresponding aircraft emissions.
But Whitehead, an appointee of Democratic President Joe Biden, said their arguments assumed that the companies were in compliance with federal regulations, including EPA-approved emissions standards, and that following state law would require them to do something different than what federal law mandates.
"But ultimately, the court cannot decide whether the airline defendants have complied with FAA and EPA orders on this record," Whitehead wrote. "That would require the court to make factual determinations."
The case is Codoni v. Port of Seattle, U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, No. 23-cv-795.
For the plaintiffs: Steve Berman of Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro
For Alaska Air: Nina Rose of Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom
For Delta: Daniel Nelson of Gibson Dunn & Crutcher and Madison Kitchens of King & Spalding
For Port of Seattle: Beth Ginsberg of Stoel Rives
Reporting by Nate Raymond in Boston
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
