Disposition of Lawsuit

[Junebug172]

Can someone explain this:


2007 CA 004358 B US AIRWAYS MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Vs. AMERICA WEST MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL
File Date 06/26/2007 Case Status Closed Case Status Date 06/26/2007
Case Disposition Notice of Removal To USDC Case Disposition Date 08/07/2007
Party Information
Party Name Party Alias(es) Party Type Attorney(s) Attorney Phone
US AIRWAYS MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL PLAINTIFF
WILDER, Mr WILLIAM R (202)223-0723
WILDER, JR, Mr ROLAND P (202)223-0723
STEPHAN, JOHN A PLAINTIFF
WILDER, Mr WILLIAM R (202)223-0723
AMERICA WEST MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Defendant
ALEXANDER, Mr ROBERT W (202)842-2600
MCILVENNA, JOHN Defendant
ALEXANDER, Mr ROBERT W (202)842-2600
Financial Entries
Receipt # Date Received From Amount Paid
76526 06/26/2007 WILDER Jr, Mr ROLAND P 120.00

Payment
Check 120.00

Fee
Cost 120.00

Docket Entries
Date Text
08/08/2007 Event Resulted: The following event: Initial Scheduling Conference-60 scheduled for 10/05/2007 at 9:30 am has been resulted as follows: Result: Event Not Held Case Dismissed Judge: MOTLEY, THOMAS J Location: Courtroom 112
08/08/2007 Notice of Removal to USDC Filed
08/07/2007 Additional eFiling Document to Notice of Removal to USDC. Filed. Submitted. 08/07/2007 09:42. ncv. Attorney: ALEXANDER, Mr ROBERT W (465673)
08/07/2007 Notice of Removal to USDC. Filed. Submitted. 08/07/2007 09:42. ncv. Attorney: ALEXANDER, Mr ROBERT W (465673) AMERICA WEST MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (Defendant); JOHN MCILVENNA (Defendant);
07/23/2007 Notice of Mailing Filed. Submitted 07/23/2007 10:13. erh Attorney: WILDER, Mr WILLIAM R (450083) US AIRWAYS MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL (PLAINTIFF); JOHN A. STEPHAN (PLAINTIFF);
06/27/2007 Issue Date: 06/27/2007 Service: Summons Issued Method: Service Issued Cost Per: $ AMERICA WEST MASTER EXECUTIVE COUNCIL 432 NORTH 44TH STREET, TWO GATEWAY STE 340 PHOENIX, AZ 85008 Tracking No: 5000033630 MCILVENNA, JOHN 432 NORTH 44TH STREET STE 340 PHOENIX, AZ 85008 Tracking No: 5000033631
06/26/2007 Event Scheduled Event: Initial Scheduling Conference-60 Date: 10/05/2007 Time: 9:30 am Judge: MOTLEY, THOMAS J Location: Courtroom 112 Result: Event Not Held Case Dismissed
06/26/2007 Motion/Application Regarding Arbitration Award (D.C. 16-4315) Filed Attorney: WILDER Jr, Mr ROLAND P (069609) Receipt: 76526 Date: 06/26/2007

 

[Bear96]

It looks like this case was removed to federal court.

When the plaintiff in a lawsuit files a case in state (or the District of Columbia) courts, under certain cirumstances the defendant can file what is known as a "removal" to the federal court system if the federal courts have jurisdiction. A notice of removal is filed both with the federal court the case is being removed to, and with the state (or D.C.) court the case is being removed from. It looks like that is what you found. Procedurally, the case is considered "dismissed" in the state/D.C. court system and all proceedings are cancelled.

Without seeing the actual removal papers or the original complaint, it is not clear why the defendant(s) chose to remove this case. Generally, removal can be done on two grounds: (1) "federal question," meaning a federal statute is at issue; and/or (2) "diversity," meaning the plaintiff(s) and defendant(s) are citizens of different states and more than $75,000 of damages is in question.

Here, I am guessing the plaintiff (East MEC) is a citizen of DC or PA, and the defendant (West MEC) is a citizen of AZ? However, I don't know if the plaintiffs were seeking monetary damages in excess of $75,000, or if they were seeking some sort of equitable relief. There may also be a federal question issue here on two possible grounds. First, the defendants may be saying this is a labor law issue, which the federal courts have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve. Second, the defendants may be saying this controversy implicates the Federal Arbitration Act (the other "FAA"), which is the statute that makes it possible for one party to go to court to enforce an arbitration award. Again, without seeing the complaint or the removal documents, these are just guesses.

Often, federal courts are preferred by defendants for various procedural reasons (i.e., it is sometimes easier to get a federal court to dismiss a case, and federal courts require a unanimous jury verdict to find liability in civil cases).

The plaintiff has 30 days to challenge a removal.

 

[Junebug172]

Payment
Check 120.00

Fee
Cost 120.00

I wonder where this money came from?

 

[Bear96]

I wonder where this money came from?

That looks like the original filing fee from when Plaintiffs filed the case in the D.C. courts. So it would have come from whomever is funding the East lawsuit.

 

[Junebug172]

That looks like the original filing fee from when Plaintiffs filed the case in the D.C. courts. So it would have come from whomever is funding the East lawsuit.

Any of you east guys know?

I hope its not dues money. That would be very bad.

 

[AWA320]

Any of you east guys know?

I hope its not dues money. That would be very bad.

You see, I hope it was dues money!!!