## Facts

- Stanley and Elka Diefenthal bought first-class tickets on an Eastern Airlines flight from New Orleans to Philadelphia and requested smoking-section seats, which they confirmed before departure.
- After boarding, they were told the first-class smoking section was full and they would have to sit in a no-smoking area to remain in first class.
- They alleged the flight attendant acted brusquely, causing embarrassment, humiliation, and emotional distress.
- The dispute arose in the context of a federal regulation requiring airlines to provide designated no-smoking areas on flights (14 C.F.R. § 252).
- The Diefenthals sought to challenge the regulator’s authority to impose smoking-related requirements under the Federal Aviation Act.

## Issues

1. Whether the Civil Aeronautics Board had statutory authority under the Federal Aviation Act to regulate onboard smoking by requiring designated no-smoking areas.
2. Whether the Federal Aviation Act implies a private right of action permitting passengers to sue the regulator or an airline for alleged statutory or regulatory violations related to smoking practices.
3. Whether the passengers’ state-law contract and tort claims against the airline satisfied the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (then requiring more than $10,000).

## Decision

- The court upheld the CAB order concluding that regulation of smoking fell within the CAB’s authority under the Federal Aviation Act.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the public-law claims against the CAB and Eastern, holding the Act did not provide an implied private right of action for the relief sought.
- The court affirmed dismissal of the state-law claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, to a legal certainty, the pleaded facts could not support recovery exceeding the jurisdictional minimum.
- The consolidated appeal and petition for review were resolved in favor of the CAB and Eastern.

## Legal Principles

- An agency may regulate carrier practices affecting passenger conditions when the statute authorizes regulation to ensure “safe and adequate service,” and the rule is reasonably related to that purpose.
- A comprehensive administrative enforcement scheme is strong evidence Congress did not intend to create an implied private right of action for damages or injunctive relief outside the statutory process.
- For diversity jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s good-faith allegation of the jurisdictional amount controls unless it appears to a legal certainty that the claim is really for less than the statutory threshold; unsupported, conclusory damages demands may fail this test.

## Conclusion

The Fifth Circuit sustained federal authority to require no-smoking areas as part of regulating “adequate service,” refused to infer a private right of action under the Federal Aviation Act, and dismissed the passengers’ state-law claims because the pleadings made it legally certain they could not recover the diversity jurisdictional minimum.


Diefenthal v. C.A.B., 681 F.2d 1039 (5th Cir. 1982)