Seaplane Adventures, LLC v. County of Marin, California

Background

Seaplane Adventures operated from a privately owned airport in Marin County and relied primarily on sightseeing tours. It held Federal Aviation Administration certifications for charter flights and certain short flights that returned to the departure location. Seaplane voluntarily closed in March 2020 and reopened on June 5, 2020.

Marin County’s COVID-19 health orders allowed some transportation and other essential services to continue, but restricted recreational activities. The orders required businesses to follow safety measures and made violations misdemeanors punishable by fines, imprisonment, or both. The County told Seaplane that commercial sightseeing and leisure flights were not allowed, although flights for essential travel and certain non-recreational services could continue. County officers warned that recreational flights could lead to a $1,000 fine per flight. Seaplane then closed its recreational operations.

Seaplane alleged that the County used the pandemic orders to shut down its business because of longstanding noise complaints from neighbors. The complaint originally included claims concerning federal aviation-law preemption, due process, equal protection, a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and an unconstitutional taking. A prior ruling dismissed all claims except the preemption issue and claims based on Seaplane’s equal-protection theory.

Summary-judgment standard

Summary judgment is proper when the evidence shows no genuine dispute about a fact that could affect the outcome and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The court stated that the party opposing summary judgment must identify specific evidence creating a real issue for trial rather than relying only on allegations.

Federal-aviation preemption

The court did not resolve the main federal-preemption question in this order. It stated that the Federal Aviation Administration had declined to provide a view because the challenged health order was no longer in effect, and that the judge had issued an order to show cause and would decide the preemption issue separately.

The court rejected Seaplane’s related argument based on California’s designation of “sea plane bases” as essential critical infrastructure. According to the court, that designation did not prevent local governments from restricting non-essential recreational operations. The court stated that Seaplane’s essential operations, such as transportation for essential activities and emergency cargo transport, were not restricted.

Equal protection

Seaplane pursued a “class of one” equal-protection theory. That theory requires proof that the government intentionally treated the plaintiff differently from similarly situated entities without a rational basis for the difference.

The court identified the relevant comparators as other air carriers providing recreational flights, regardless of the aircraft or certification type. It found that the health order focused on the purpose of the business, the risk of COVID-19 transmission, whether passengers were in a confined space, and whether the activity was essential or recreational. The court concluded that aircraft type and Federal Aviation Administration certification were not the relevant similarities for this order.

The court held that the distinction between recreational and non-recreational aviation had a rational basis. Essential transportation, flight instruction, cargo transport, and fuel services provided community benefits that justified the associated transmission risks. Recreational flights did not provide a comparable benefit, in the court’s view.

The court also found that Seaplane had not produced enough evidence that the County treated similarly situated businesses differently. The evidence concerning other aviation businesses did not establish that they had violated the health order while the County knowingly failed to enforce it against them. The County had warned San Francisco Helicopters about tourist trips and told Skydive Golden Gate that recreational skydiving could not operate under the order. The court found no comparable reports showing that the County knew other air carriers were violating the order and treated them more favorably.

The court rejected Seaplane’s argument that neighbors’ noise complaints showed discriminatory intent. It stated that the motives of people who reported Seaplane were not the relevant issue; the relevant question was the County’s motive. The court found no evidence that a County official had an improper motive. It concluded that the County acted rationally in restricting Seaplane’s recreational operations to reduce virus transmission.

Section 1983 claim

Seaplane’s claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 survived an earlier motion to dismiss only to the extent it was based on the alleged equal-protection violation. Because the court rejected the equal-protection claim, it stated that no basis remained for the Section 1983 claim and dismissed that claim.

Evidentiary and discovery issues

The court rejected Seaplane’s objections to testimony from the County’s public health officer, Dr. Matthew Willis. It found that the County’s designation of another employee as the person most knowledgeable had not prejudiced Seaplane, and that Dr. Willis was describing his personal involvement in developing and enforcing the health order rather than offering an undisclosed expert opinion.

The court stated that it did not rely on declarations containing unsupported conclusions or speculation. It also refused to consider Seaplane’s assertion that withheld privileged documents might create a factual dispute because Seaplane had not timely challenged the withholding before the discovery deadline.

Disposition

The court’s conclusion states: “summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of the County and against Seaplane on the equal protection and Section 1983 claims.”