As I said, we owe your desert judge big time. He cost you million$. Now you got to raise money to pay off your current debt, then raise more to pay for your next loser.
There you go again. The tired old ALPA East MEC/USAPA conspiracy theory. Filed by Jacob on june 11th. You couldn't even file it as a "motion." You filed it as a "Petition for Clarification FRAP Rule 40."
The Ninth made it clear "any contract USAPA could negotiate would undoubtedly be rejected by its membership" if it included the NIC.
Now, even though you lost, you're asking the Ninth to give you a shot at damages, even though you LOST! "The named plaintiffs file the Petition, pursuant to FRAP 40, for clarification as to whether the Court intended to dismiss those claims as well." The "Background" section tries to resurrect your tired old East MEC/USAPA conspiracy theory. "Had the East MEC not done so (pulled out of negotiations), the JNC would have completed negotiation of a single CBA well-before October 2008 and that the CBA would have been a CBA that used the Nicolau Award Seniority List...Plaintiffs would not have been furloughed or lost Captain opportunities. Withdrawal of the East JNC representatives, therefore, was a substantial part of the but-for cause of Plaintiffs' injuries...The nature of the damages claims does not raise any ripeness concerns.."
B. Ripeness analysis does not consider merits.
C. The Court cannot decide the merits of the damages claims on this appeal
D. The Court should avoid a ruling that would make the damages both too early and too late.
IV Conclusion - The named plaintiffs respectfully request that the Court give further consideration to the status of their damages claims -
Nic4, Are you serious? What part of you lost are you missing? What part of no ripeness, no way to judge damages? I bet the Ninth gets a kick out of your "clarification."
That kind of insult has what to do with what?
They better start worrying about whether they'll survive financially. ALPA's last-ditch attempt to get Bensel V ALPA (TWA pilots) tossed out on summary judgement failed. Judge Irenas ruled the case will go to court, jury trial. They're in depositions now. A key player in this for ALPA turns out to be an ALPA communications staffer named Ron Rindfleisch, title, "New Members Liaison." Things are tough for ALPA. In the court documents:
"ALPA denies Rindfleisch corresponded with the American pilots regularly, stating that he simple received a lot of emails from them. As Rindfleisch's emails were unable to be retrieved by the time ALPA acknowledged its duty to preserve his electronic correspondence, Plaintiffs are unable to confirm directly that he actively corresponded with the two (AMR) pilots. But there is circumstantial evidence which indicated that he did...As of now, Plaintiffs can identify over 150 known emails between American pilots and executives of ALPA (including Rindfleisch) between January 1, 2001 and April of 2002. From these facts, the Court draws an inference favorable to the Plaintiffs and for the purposes of this Motion accepts as true that Rindfleisch corresponded frequently with the American pilots."
Ouch!
