Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
EITAN LEASCHAUER, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION, Respondents.
MEMORANDUM*
Eitan Leaschauer petitions pro se for review of the National Transportation Safety Board's (“NTSB”) final order suspending Leaschauer's private pilot certificate pending reexamination. We have jurisdiction under 49 U.S.C. § 1153. We review the NTSB's final order under the arbitrary and capricious standard. Gilbert v. NTSB, 80 F.3d 364, 368 (9th Cir. 1996). We deny the petition for review.
The NTSB's determination that a reasonable basis existed for the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) to request reexamination of Leaschauer was not arbitrary or capricious because substantial evidence supported the NTSB's finding that Leaschauer took off without prior clearance. See Arrington v. Daniels, 516 F.3d 1106, 1112 (9th Cir. 2008) (arbitrary and capricious standard requires agency to base decision on consideration of relevant factors and avoid clear error); 49 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(3) (“Findings of fact by the Board, if supported by substantial evidence, are conclusive.”); 49 U.S.C. § 44709 (empowering FAA to reexamine certificate holders).
The NTSB's determination that the chief administrative law judge (“ALJ”) did not err by denying Leaschauer's motion to disqualify the ALJ was not arbitrary or capricious because Leaschauer failed to show that the ALJ had any bias or prejudice from an extra-judicial source. See Arrington, 516 F.3d at 1112; Adm'r v. Lackey, NTSB Order. No. EA-5419 at 11 (2008) (setting forth standard).
The NTSB's determination that the ALJ's grant of leave for the FAA to amend its complaint did not warrant relief was not arbitrary or capricious because the amendment did not prejudice Leaschauer. See Janka v. NTSB, 925 F.2d 1147, 1152 (9th Cir. 1991) (reversal is warranted only for substantial and prejudicial errors in administrative procedure).
We reject as unsupported by the record Leaschauer's contentions that he was denied due process during proceedings. Id.
We reject as without merit Leaschauer's contentions regarding misconduct by the ALJ or NTSB.
All pending motions and requests are denied.
PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 13-73818
Decided: June 23, 2016
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)