2014 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
In their very flawed recent appeal to the 9th Circuit Court, the west pilots want the east pilots to pay for legal expenses since the marty and and 28 jjjj jacobs show started years ago.
"The West Pilots’ fees and litigation expenses have been funded through voluntary
West Pilot donations. In contrast, USAPA has statutory authority to require all pilots, East and West, pay its fees and litigation expenses.
The West Pilots incorporate the legal argument on common benefit doctrine that
they made in their initial brief on remedy."
"The West Pilots’ fees and litigation expenses have been funded through voluntary
West Pilot donations. In contrast, USAPA has statutory authority to require all pilots, East and West, pay its fees and litigation expenses.
The West Pilots incorporate the legal argument on common benefit doctrine that
they made in their initial brief on remedy."
"Based on such controlling authority, and without need to rely on the CAB’s historic
application of the LPPs, this Court has authority to do all of the following: (1) order use
of the Nicolau Award; (2) order West Pilot participation in the pending seniority
integration process with the American Airlines pilots; and (3) award the West Pilots
substantial damages.
C. The Court should require use of the Nicolau Award unless USAPA
submits to neutral arbitration to determine whether to use the
Award."
"Apart from damages (which is discussed below) the West Pilots proposed two
remedies (no others have been proposed). The remedy favored by the West Pilots, which
most directly addresses USAPA’s breach, is an order mandating use of the Nicolau
Award seniority list in the process of integrating US Airways pilots with American
Airlines pilots."
"III. Conclusion
This Court has authority to provide whatever remedy is needed to make the West
Pilots whole. USAPA’s steadfast refusal to abide by its DFR leaves the Court only one
option: an order that mandates use of the Nicolau Award, requires West Pilot
participation in the MOU process, and awards damages equal to the reasonable attorneys’
fees and litigation expenses that the West Pilots incurred since the fall of 2008.
Dated this 24th day of May, 2013.
POLSINELLI PC
/s/ Andrew S. Jacob
By _______________________________
Marty Harper
Andrew S. Jacob"
Mental monkey spanking from marty and and andy.
The vile attitude that CactusPilot1 spews very much parallels the attitude of the AFO who harassed me on the JS.....probably a 2000 hire who now desperately sees that he is going down in flames and just has to give somebody some **** before he hits ground zero. He just can't accept the fact that the NIC is dead and his expensive gamble is not going to pay off.cltrat said:
breeze
electricjet98
Senior
I'd swear that you had previously posted that you were "moving-on"...that you were no longer posting on that incident. Or is this like when you posted you had taped/recorded the incident, only to recant that statement later.
Make-up your mind Jerry...and although obviously difficult for you, try to be truthful.
Make-up your mind Jerry...and although obviously difficult for you, try to be truthful.
Claxon, am shocked those were only demands brought to the 9th, rumor has it on that list was, a mandate to make the "LIBERTY TIE" worn by all USAPA members, the group "WHAM" to re-do there song to JUDGE WAKE-ME UP BEFORE YOU GO-GO" , and all rolls of "INTEGRITY MATTERS" toilet paper to be taken off the airplanes!
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
Blah blah blah.MUTATIS MUTANDIS said:
Hawkhunter
Veteran
- Jul 11, 2005
- 577
- 521
Cactpussy is ready to piss his pants........ AGAIN!
- Feb 10, 2011
- 1,647
- 5,392
How's that commute to Phoenix?luvthe9 said:
Blah blah blah.....Just laughing at you, dork.Hawkhunter said:
west pilot acceptable Dicta by convenience to their cause.
In the August 2014 west appeal brief they claim Judge Silver helped the East by providing dicta regarding a legitimate union purpose.
The west at the same time accepts dicta when it is pro their cause. The west, the company and apa can not stop quoting the judge's "by a slim margin" "arbitration is powerful evidence" etc etc, but anti dicta "will not be tolerated" by the west.
"4. The District Court ought not to have supplied purported legitimate reasons for USAPA actions.
The court should not have supplied purported legitimate reasons for
USAPA’s actions where USAPA was unwilling or incapable of doing so
itself. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43, (1983) (holding that a court should not supply a “reasoned basis
for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given”). In other words,
a union such as USAPA cannot sit back and offer no justification for an
action that favors one group of workers at the expense of another and have
the court invent a reason for its actions. A court certainly cannot invent a
legitimate purpose on the union’s behalf after the trial has ended. That would
be particularly unfair because it leaves the wronged workers no opportunity
to dispute the legitimacy of a purported legitimate purpose. Surprisingly,
that is what happened here.
USAPA had the burden on its own to prove a legitimate purpose.
Consequently, it ought to have lost Claim One because it failed to provide
any admissible evidence of a legitimate purpose for putting paragraph 10(h)
into the MOU. USAPA escaped a ruling that it breached the duty of fair
representation only because the District Court invented purposes (overall
economic benefit and ensuring majority ratification) for USAPA in its posttrial
order— rationales that USAPA neither suggested, nor pursued, at trial.
That was error.
For obvious reasons of fairness, courts do not address an argument that was not raised at trial (here it was first raised by the court in its post-trial
order). Cf. Duggan v. Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307, 313 (9th Cir. 1996) (refusing to
address an “alter ego issue [that] was not tried in the district court even by
implication”). It was particularly unfair here for the District Court to supply reasons for USAPA’s actions after the trial, when USAPA refused to do so during the trial."
Read it and weep. (sarcasm)
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/D13-1_West_Pilots_First_Cross_Appeal_Brief.pdf
In the August 2014 west appeal brief they claim Judge Silver helped the East by providing dicta regarding a legitimate union purpose.
The west at the same time accepts dicta when it is pro their cause. The west, the company and apa can not stop quoting the judge's "by a slim margin" "arbitration is powerful evidence" etc etc, but anti dicta "will not be tolerated" by the west.
"4. The District Court ought not to have supplied purported legitimate reasons for USAPA actions.
The court should not have supplied purported legitimate reasons for
USAPA’s actions where USAPA was unwilling or incapable of doing so
itself. Cf. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463
U.S. 29, 43, (1983) (holding that a court should not supply a “reasoned basis
for the agency’s action that the agency itself has not given”). In other words,
a union such as USAPA cannot sit back and offer no justification for an
action that favors one group of workers at the expense of another and have
the court invent a reason for its actions. A court certainly cannot invent a
legitimate purpose on the union’s behalf after the trial has ended. That would
be particularly unfair because it leaves the wronged workers no opportunity
to dispute the legitimacy of a purported legitimate purpose. Surprisingly,
that is what happened here.
USAPA had the burden on its own to prove a legitimate purpose.
Consequently, it ought to have lost Claim One because it failed to provide
any admissible evidence of a legitimate purpose for putting paragraph 10(h)
into the MOU. USAPA escaped a ruling that it breached the duty of fair
representation only because the District Court invented purposes (overall
economic benefit and ensuring majority ratification) for USAPA in its posttrial
order— rationales that USAPA neither suggested, nor pursued, at trial.
That was error.
For obvious reasons of fairness, courts do not address an argument that was not raised at trial (here it was first raised by the court in its post-trial
order). Cf. Duggan v. Hobbs, 99 F.3d 307, 313 (9th Cir. 1996) (refusing to
address an “alter ego issue [that] was not tried in the district court even by
implication”). It was particularly unfair here for the District Court to supply reasons for USAPA’s actions after the trial, when USAPA refused to do so during the trial."
Read it and weep. (sarcasm)
http://leonidas.cactuspilots.us/West_Pilot_DFR_DJ/D13-1_West_Pilots_First_Cross_Appeal_Brief.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
