EITAN LEASCHAUER V. NTSB, No. 13-73818 (9th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION JUN 23 2016 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT EITAN LEASCHAUER, No. Petitioner, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS 13-73818 NTSB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
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
