# Leaschauer v. National Transportation Safety Board

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · June 23, 2016 · 667 F. App'x 260

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216633

## Case

- **Full name:** Eitan LEASCHAUER, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD; Federal Aviation Administration, Respondents
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** June 23, 2016
- **Citations:** 667 F. App'x 260
- **Precedential status:** Unpublished
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Bea, Watford, Friedland
- **Nature of suit:** Agency
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216633

## Opinion text

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS JUN 23 2016
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EITAN LEASCHAUER, No. 13-73818

Petitioner, NTSB No. EA-5680

v.
MEMORANDUM*
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION
SAFETY BOARD; FEDERAL AVIATION
ADMINISTRATION,

Respondents.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the
National Transportation Safety Board

Submitted June 14, 2016**

Before: BEA, WATFORD, and FRIEDLAND, Circuit Judges.

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.

*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
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

2 13-73818
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.

3 13-73818

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3216633. Public record. Not legal advice.