To foster economic competition among airlines,
Congress in the Airline Deregulation Act of 1978
prohibits States from enacting or enforcing any law
related to "a price, route, or service" of an air carrier. But
when an air carrier's employee intentionally commits
fraud, even inventing a fake recipient/signor to cover up
the air carrier's failed delivery of petitioner's package, is
it liable under state law for its fraud using the rationale of
the Second, Third, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits or
are such claims preempted by the ADA as decided by the
First, Fifth and Sixth Circuits?

1. Should this Court resolve the continuing conflict
among the Circuits whether the ADA preempts state-law
tort claims which allege intentional, unreasonable and
unnecessary behavior by an air carrier in providing its
service?

2. Did the Panel mishandle the summary judgment
record by refusing to view the reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to petitioner,
the nonmoving party, when assessing its state-law
contract claim that the air carrier never presented it with
its terms of service until after the contract was formed?

Whether the Airline Deregulation Act preempts state-law tort claims alleging intentional fraud by an air carrier