United States District Court, District of Columbia
ROBERT C. TAYLOR, Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, et al., Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Amit
P. Mehta United States District Judge
I.
INTRODUCTION
Plaintiff
Robert Taylor is a model aircraft enthusiast who owns
multiple model planes and flies them as a hobby and for
recreational purposes. He brings this action on behalf of
himself and a putative class of all model aircraft owners who
paid $5 to register their aircraft with the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) under a rule later struck down by the
D.C. Circuit. Plaintiff claims that the registration
requirement violated the Privacy Act and the Little Tucker
Act. He also advances against the FAA a violation of his
constitutional right of privacy, as well as the common law
tort of unjust enrichment. Plaintiff demands that the agency
return the more than $4 million it collected in registration
fees and pay over $836 million in statutory penalties.
Defendant
FAA now moves to dismiss, arguing that (1) Plaintiff lacks
standing to sue, (2) the D.C. Circuit has exclusive
jurisdiction over this matter, and (3) the Complaint fails to
state a claim upon which relief can be granted. For the
reasons stated herein, the court holds that, as presently
pleaded, Plaintiff lacks standing to bring this action.
Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is therefore granted.
II.
BACKGROUND
A.
Factual Background
The
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is tasked with
“promot[ing] safe flight of civil aircraft in air
commerce[.]” 49 U.S.C. § 44701. Invoking this
authority, on December 16, 2015, the FAA issued an interim
final rule (the “Registration Rule”), requiring
owners of small unmanned aircraft, including model aircraft,
to register their aircraft with the FAA “to facilitate
compliance with the statutory requirement that all aircraft
register prior to operation.” 80 Fed. Reg. at 78, 594
(Registration Rule); see also Pl.'s Compl. and
Demand for Jury Trial, ECF No. 1 [hereinafter Compl.], ¶
7; Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 23 [hereinafter
Def.'s Mot.], at 4. The Registration Rule required a
registrant to supply her name, address, and email address.
See 14 C.F.R. § 48.100(b). The registration was
good for three years, id. §48.11(c), and the
fee to register was $5, id. § 48.30(b).
On May
19, 2017, the D.C. Circuit struck down the Registration Rule
insofar as it mandated registration of model aircraft.
Taylor v. Huerta, 856 F.3d 1089 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
The Circuit's decision rested on Section 336(c) of the
FAA Modernization and Reform Act, Pub. L. No. 112-95, 126
Stat. 11 (2012), which provides that the FAA “may not
promulgate any rule or regulation regarding a model
aircraft” flown for recreational use and meeting
certain additional criteria, see Taylor, 856 F.3d at
1092-93. The Circuit succinctly explained why the
Registration Rule as applied to model aircraft could not
stand:
In short, the 2012 FAA Modernization and Reform Act provides
that the FAA “may not promulgate any rule or regulation
regarding a model aircraft, ” yet the FAA's 2015
Registration Rule is a “rule or regulation regarding a
model aircraft.” Statutory interpretation does not get
much simpler. The Registration Rule is unlawful as applied to
model aircraft.
Id. at 1092. The Circuit rejected the FAA's
various arguments attempting to justify its exercise of
regulatory authority over model aircraft. See Id. at
1092-93.
Following
the D.C. Circuit's decision, the FAA ceased enforcing the
Registration Rule and took steps to enable model aircraft
owners to undo their registrations. Compl. ¶ 16;
Def.'s Mot. at 5-6. The FAA made available on its website
a form, titled “Section 336 Aircraft Owner Request to
Delete Registration/Receive Refund, ” which allowed
registrants to seek a refund and ask that their personal
information be deleted. Compl. ¶ 16; Def.'s Mot. at
5-6; Def.'s Mot., Ex. 1, ECF No. 23-2, Section 336
Aircraft Owner Request to Delete Registration/Receive Refund
[hereinafter “Refund Form”]. The Refund Form
required owners to certify that they operated their model
aircraft in compliance with various statutory requirements
and, if they sought a refund, to supply bank account
information. Compl. ¶ 16. Plaintiff did not submit a
Refund Form.
The
relief afforded model aircraft owners under Taylor
was short lived. On December 12, 2017, the President signed
into law the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal
Year 2018, (“NDAA”), which revived the
Registration Rule. Section 1092(d) of the NDAA provides:
The rules adopted by the Administrator of the Federal
Aviation Administration in the matter of registration and
marking requirements for small unmanned aircraft
(FAA-2015-7396; published on December 16, 2015) that were
vacated by the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit in Taylor v. Huerta
(No. 15-1495; decided on May 19, 2017) shall be restored to
effect on the date of enactment of this Act.
Pub. L. No. 115-91, 131 Stat. 1283 (2017). Thus, the NDAA
granted the FAA the statutory authority to require
registration of model aircraft that the D.C. Circuit in
Taylor held the FAA did not possess.
With
the Registration Rule reinstated, the FAA provided guidance
to model aircraft owners. As to owners who had registered
their aircraft prior to Taylor, the FAA did not
require them to re-register, unless the owner had completed
the refund/deletion process offered by the agency. Def's
Mot. at 6-7.[1] Additionally, the FAA made all
pre-Taylor registrations effective until December
12, ...