Another loss for USAPA.
Change of Venue denied.
"This lawsuit involves the integration of pilot seniority lists upon the merger of US
Airways and America West Airlines, now operating under the name “US Airways†with
headquarters in Tempe, Arizona, and employing thousands of pilots residing in numerous
states across the country. A jury found USAPA breached its duty of fair representation
by abandoning an arbitrated seniority list in favor of a date-of-hire list solely to benefit
one group of pilots at the expense of another. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and money
damages.
Most of the Jones factors are not relevant and do not favor either forum. This
case raises federal questions and will be decided under federal law. Neither side contends
they have unwilling non-party witnesses who must be compelled to testify at trial. Where
agreements were negotiated and the parties’ contacts with the forum have no bearing on
the issues to be decided. Whether the forum is Arizona or Washington, D.C., does not
affect the ease of access to sources of proof.
The two relevant Jones factors, the plaintiff’s choice of forum and the differences
in the costs of litigation in the two forums, favor denying transfer. All six Plaintiffs
reside in the Phoenix area. Plaintiffs are represented by a Phoenix law firm, and
Plaintiffs’ counsel all reside in Arizona. USAPA, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.,
estimates there are eighty to one hundred witnesses identified, many of whom reside
closer to Washington, D.C., than to Phoenix, but few of whom actually reside in
Washington, D.C. Litigating in Washington, D.C., instead of Arizona, may somewhat
decrease USAPA’s or individual witnesses’ costs, but would substantially increase
Plaintiffs’ costs and deny Plaintiffs their choice of forum. Testimony of dispersed
witnesses may be presented by deposition, if that is more convenient, regardless of the
forum.
Finally, this litigation has proceeded in this forum for nearly a year and a half,
including a lengthy jury trial on liability, numerous and extensive legal rulings, and great
expenditure of judicial resources. The waste of judicial resources from transfer to a
different judge in another district late in the litigation disfavors transfer. It would be a
bad exercise of discretion and likely an abuse of discretion.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue and
Transfer to Another District, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (doc. # 622) is denied.
DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.
Neil V. Wake"