Reinbold v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.

── Reinbold v. Alaska Airlines, Inc. ── Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 20 2026 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT LORA REINBOLD, No. 25-901 D.C. No. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:23-cv-00087-MMS v. MEMORANDUM* ALASKA AIRLINES, INC.; et al., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Matthew M. Scoble, Magistrate Judge, Presiding Argued and Submitted April 22, 2026 San Francisco, California Before: SCHROEDER, CHRISTEN, and FORREST, Circuit Judges. Plaintiff-Appellant Lora Reinbold sued Alaska Airlines and several of its employees for enforcing state and federal COVID-19 mask mandates, refusing to exempt her from masking, and banning her from flying with the airline for one year for not complying with its masking requirements. Reinbold now appeals the district * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. court’s denial of her “Objections to Order,” which we construe as a motion for reconsideration. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm. We review a district court’s denial of a motion for reconsideration for abuse of discretion and any underlying legal conclusions de novo. Novalpina Cap. Partners I GP v. Read, 149 F.4th 1092, 1100 (9th Cir. 2025). 1. Dismissal for Failure to State a Claim. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) requires dismissal of a complaint “unless it ‘contain[s] sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Karasek v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 956 F.3d 1093, 1104 (9th Cir. 2020) (alteration in original) (quoting Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)). We accept as true a plaintiff’s well-pleaded factual allegations and construe all reasonable factual inferences in her favor. Id. Reinbold’s primary argument is that the district court erred in dismissing her claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because it incorrectly determined that Alaska Airlines is not a state actor. We disagree. Section 1983 provides a private cause of action “for deprivations of rights under the Constitution and laws of the United States when the deprivation takes place under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory.” Caviness v. Horizon Cmty. Learning Ctr., Inc., 590 F.3d 806, 812 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). “[T]o recover under § 1983 . . . , a plaintiff must show ‘that the conduct allegedly causing the deprivation of a federal right [is] fairly 2 25-901 attributable to the State.’” Id. (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co., 457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). What constitutes conduct that is “fairly attributable [to the State] is a matter of normative judgment, and the criteria lack rigid simplicity.” O’Handley v. Weber, 62 F.4th 1145, 1156 (9th Cir. 2023) (alteration in original) (quoting Brentwood Acad. v. Tenn. Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass’n, 531 U.S. 288, 295 (2001)). Reinbold has not alleged facts that plausibly establish Alaska Airlines was operating as a state actor in enforcing government-imposed COVID-19 mask mandates. Reinbold argues that Alaska Airlines and its employees acted under color of law by “aggressively enforcing” state and federal mask mandates at “state-owned airport f