cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #631
If you were right. Then why is usapa opposing it? Could it be you are wrong?
US Pilots Labor Discussion 7/13- STAY ON TOPIC AND OBSERVE THE RULES
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
cleardirect
Veteran
- May 24, 2008
- 6,234
- 9,749
- Banned
- #633
I don't know who you have been talking to but NO ONE from the wet I have talked to is fed up with AOL or the legal strategy. Just more FUD.
How can you say the west is on our last leg? The company is asking for a ruling. Do they have to use the Nicolau, or can they get out of the law suit leaving just usapa.
If the court grants the Nicolau usapa is finished. If they company is released we still sue usapa for DFR. It this suit is dismissed nothing changes but the company is on record as believing that usapa is violating the RLA and that it is the east PILOTS and west PILOTS not ALPA. Also that they accepted the Nicolau but not usapa's DOH.
So what in this filing puts us on our last leg?
But you did stay at a Holiday in last night?
And yet, you're "not an (E)ast pilot"...so how are you so versed in the history of these two groups?
Thank you, Professor, for explaining "unquestionably ripe". I wish you had included a citation for you quote. Perhaps you (the guy who isn't an east pilot) could explain the intricacies of "binding arbitration". I'm pretty sure that DOESN'T mean you're released from legal obligation if something is, as you say, "not to your liking". I would agree with you that it is, without a doubt, it is also a venue where you "take your chance" with the outcome.
Well thank you for taking a break from whatever it is that you do (besides NOT being an East pilot) and trying to set the record straight for the West. I'm sure everyone appreciates it. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.
Thanks for stopping by.
Well I am sure usapa will oppose the filing just entered by AOL to have the request moved to Judge Wake under section 42 of the circuit court procedures.
Man, I cannot wait to hear Wake welcome Seham back to his courtroom!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're welcome. I thought since 767jetz shows his devout interest, I'd go ahead and do the same. Oh, I've been watching, to be sure. I am an airline pilot...also true....just not for USAirways.
I suppose this ugly thing has to go all the way to it's inevitably ugly conclusion...because it's obvious AOL cant turn it off at this point. I'm not sure who you'll sue next though....
carry on
snapthis
Veteran
- Dec 23, 2009
- 4,236
- 6,907
Oh, this is getting better by the hour. Nice maneuver Marty!
We can only hope.
But that would required usapa to abandon their DOH pipedream, and return to the real world where people are expected to live up to their obligations.
Hopefully, we will not have to sue anybody.
If all the parties involved would simply adhere to their commitments, live up to their obligations and maintain any sense of integrity, there will be, and would have been no lawsuits.
Unfortunately, Bradford met Seham, and the rest as they say is history.
Since it has not been quoted for some time, I will remind all.
Integrity Matters!
Waketurbulence
Advanced
The file is too big to attach.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don ADDINGTON; John BOSTIC;
Mark Burman; Afshin IRANPOUR;
Roger VELEZ; and Steve WARGOCKI,
on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSN, an
unincorporated association,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-01633-PHX-NVW
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01570-PHX-ROS
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER
RELATED CASE, PURSUANT TO
LRCIV 42.1.
Plaintiffs Don ADDINGTON; John BOSTIC; Mark Burman; Afshin IRANPOUR;
Roger VELEZ; and Steve WARGOCKI, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly‐situated individuals, file this motion to transfer related case US Airways
v. Addington, Case No. 2:10‐cv‐01570‐PHX‐ROS (US Airways), to this Court
pursuant to LRCiv 42.1. The Court should accept the transfer of US Airways because
it (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2) involve
substantially the same parties . . . ; [and (3)] call for determination of substantially
the same questions of law. Id. This Court has already expended substantial judicial
resources familiarizing himself with all the parties, issues and law that will be involved
in US Airways. If US Airways is not transferred to this Court, its resolution could entail
2 substantial unnecessary duplication of judicial effort. This motion is supported by the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities that follows.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
The history of the underlying dispute is well known to the Court. It is recounted
for the record and for the benefit of Judge Silver, to whom US Airways was randomly
assigned.
US Airways and America West merged in 2005. The two pilot groups, referred
to as the West Pilots and East Pilots, agreed to integrate their respective seniority lists
to complete the integration of airline operations. Nearly five years later, they have not
done so. The pilots agreed to use binding arbitration conducted by George Nicolau to
determine a method of seniority integration. That result of that arbitration is referred to
as the Nicolau Award. After the arbitration was completed, the East Pilots objected to
the Nicolau Award and prevented its implementation. The subsequent events were as
follows:
[T]he Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) was decertified and a new
union, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), certified precisely to
frustrate implementation of the Nicolau [Award] and to negotiate a CBA
with U.S. Airways that favors the East Pilots. As the district court found,
USAPAs sole objective in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal
to the Airline was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather
than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole. Thus, the terms of
USAPAs seniority proposal are substantially less favorable to West Pilots
than the Nicolau Award made through binding arbitration, an award that
USAPA concedes that it will never bargain for.
Addington v. US Airline Pilots Assn, 606 F.3d 1174, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2010) (Bybee,
CJ, dissenting).
Addington was filed by the West Pilots on September 4, 2008, asserting breach
of the duty of fair representation (DFR) against USAPA for wrongfully refusing to
support implementation of the Nicolau Award. It went to trial on liability on April 28,
3
2009. A jury found that USAPA breached the DFR on the basis that its sole objective
for refusing to implement the Nicolau Award was to benefit East Pilots at the expense
of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining unit as a whole. Other motivations
that were advanced by USAPA, the jury found, were simply pretextual.
Following a bench trial on remedy, the Court ordered injunctive relief that
permanently enjoined and ordered USAPA to:
(1) make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single [CBA] …
that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal …;
(2) [m]ake all reasonable efforts to support and defend the … Nicolau Award in
negotiations with US Airways; and
(3) [n]ot negotiate for separate collective bargaining agreements for the separate
pilot groups….
USAPA appealed the injunction. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of
the appeal because it held that the case was not ripe for injunctive relief, partly because
the district court cannot fashion a[n] [injunctive] remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs
harm. Addington, 606 F.3d at 1180. It explained that, under the district courts
injunction mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is uncertain that the
West Pilots preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated. Id. at 1181. The
Ninth Circuit stated, however, that it le[ft] USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant
to its DFR, with the interests of all members-both East and West in mind, under pain
of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified. Id. at 1180, n.1.
The Ninth Circuit denied the West Pilots petition for rehearing en banc. On July
14, 2010, the West Pilots filed a motion to stay the mandate while they petitioned for
certiorari. USAPA immediately filed an opposition making clear its intention to push
US Airways to accept a date-of-hire seniority list as soon as the mandate issues. The
motion to stay is still pending before the Ninth Circuit.
While USAPA appealed, negotiation of a new CBA faltered. Now with a
mandate vacating the injunction on the horizon, USAPA has announced its intention to
4
demand US Airways accept a date-of-hire seniority list. On July 26, 2010, US Airways
filed US Airways, a declaratory action seeking a ruling as to whether USAPAs
continued insistence on and/or entry into a collective bargaining agreement which does
not incorporate the Nicolau Award is or is not a breach of USAPAs duties under the
Railway Labor Act, and, if it is, whether US Airways would incur liability to West
Pilots if it were to agree to a CBA that did not use the Nicolau Award. A copy of the
Complaint is attached hereto.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Decision
Pursuant to the Local Rules for the District of Arizona,
Any party may file a motion to transfer the case . . . to a single Judge
whenever two or more cases are pending before different Judges and . . .
such cases: (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2)
involve substantially the same parties or property; . . . (4) call for
determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (5) for any
other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by
different Judges.
LRCiv 42.1(a).
The standard for transfer pursuant to LRCiv 42.1 is similar to the standard
for consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and district courts have broad discretion in determining whether to grant
such motions. By its terms, LRCiv 42.1(a)(1) does not require that each of
its subsections be shown before a transfer is proper thereunder.
Gagan v. Estate of Sharar, 2008 WL 2810978, *2 (D. Ariz. 2008) (citations omitted);
Parra v. Bashas Inc., 2009 WL 1024615, *5 (D. Ariz. 2009) (same). The purpose of
assigning related cases to the same judge is to promote judicial efficiency and to avoid
the necessity of a new judge learning a complex factual scenario from the beginning.
See In re Marshall, 291 B.R. 855, 859 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2003).
B. LRCiv 42.1 supports accepting the transfer of US Airways.
Four subsections of LRCiv 42.1 apply here. First, Addington and US Airways
arise from substantially the same transaction or events because both arise from the
2005 merger and the integration of the pilot seniority lists. Second, both cases involve
5
substantially the same parties because, until US Airways was dismissed from the
Addington litigation, the same parties participated in both matters. Indeed, even after it
was dismissed as a party, US Airways closely observed the trial to protect its interests.
Third, both cases involve the determination of substantially the same questions of
law because both involve nuances of USAPAs duty of fair representation in regard
to seniority integration and the ripeness of claims related thereto.
Finally, there would surely be substantial duplication of effort if US Airways
were not transferred to this Court. That well over 600 items were filed and that it was
necessary for the Court to draft a detailed 53 page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law (doc. # 593) shows that the Court expended considerable effort on Addington and
that a judge new to this subject would have to expend much of that effort again if US
Airways were not transferred to this Court.
III. CONCLUSION
By filing its declaratory action, US Airways, in effect, rejoined Addington to
protect its interest. Rather than formally interplead in Addington, however, it filed a
new action. Surely, the most sensible course is to transfer US Airways to this Court.
Such transfer is well within the discretion provided by LRCiv 42.1. Plaintiffs,
therefore, respectfully, ask the Court to accept US Airways in transfer.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2010.
POLSINELLI SHUGHART, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th day of July 2010, I electronically transmitted the
foregoing document to the U.S. District Court Clerks Office by using the ECF System
for filing and transmittal.
By/s/ Anxxxxxxxx
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don ADDINGTON; John BOSTIC;
Mark Burman; Afshin IRANPOUR;
Roger VELEZ; and Steve WARGOCKI,
on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly-situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSN, an
unincorporated association,
Defendant.
CASE NO. 2:08-CV-01633-PHX-NVW
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-01570-PHX-ROS
PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO TRANSFER
RELATED CASE, PURSUANT TO
LRCIV 42.1.
Plaintiffs Don ADDINGTON; John BOSTIC; Mark Burman; Afshin IRANPOUR;
Roger VELEZ; and Steve WARGOCKI, on behalf of themselves and all other
similarly‐situated individuals, file this motion to transfer related case US Airways
v. Addington, Case No. 2:10‐cv‐01570‐PHX‐ROS (US Airways), to this Court
pursuant to LRCiv 42.1. The Court should accept the transfer of US Airways because
it (1) arise
substantially the same parties . . . ; [and (3)] call
the same questions of law. Id. This Court has already expended substantial judicial
resources familiarizing himself with all the parties, issues and law that will be involved
in US Airways. If US Airways is not transferred to this Court, its resolution could entail
2 substantial unnecessary duplication of judicial effort. This motion is supported by the
Memorandum of Points and Authorities that follows.
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. BACKGROUND
The history of the underlying dispute is well known to the Court. It is recounted
for the record and for the benefit of Judge Silver, to whom US Airways was randomly
assigned.
US Airways and America West merged in 2005. The two pilot groups, referred
to as the West Pilots and East Pilots, agreed to integrate their respective seniority lists
to complete the integration of airline operations. Nearly five years later, they have not
done so. The pilots agreed to use binding arbitration conducted by George Nicolau to
determine a method of seniority integration. That result of that arbitration is referred to
as the Nicolau Award. After the arbitration was completed, the East Pilots objected to
the Nicolau Award and prevented its implementation. The subsequent events were as
follows:
[T]he Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) was decertified and a new
union, the U.S. Airline Pilots Association (USAPA), certified precisely to
frustrate implementation of the Nicolau [Award] and to negotiate a CBA
with U.S. Airways that favors the East Pilots. As the district court found,
USAPAs sole objective in adopting and presenting its seniority proposal
to the Airline was to benefit East Pilots at the expense of West Pilots, rather
than to benefit the bargaining union as a whole. Thus, the terms of
USAPAs seniority proposal are substantially less favorable to West Pilots
than the Nicolau Award made through binding arbitration, an award that
USAPA concedes that it will never bargain for.
Addington v. US Airline Pilots Assn, 606 F.3d 1174, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 2010) (Bybee,
CJ, dissenting).
Addington was filed by the West Pilots on September 4, 2008, asserting breach
of the duty of fair representation (DFR) against USAPA for wrongfully refusing to
support implementation of the Nicolau Award. It went to trial on liability on April 28,
3
2009. A jury found that USAPA breached the DFR on the basis that its sole objective
for refusing to implement the Nicolau Award was to benefit East Pilots at the expense
of West Pilots, rather than to benefit the bargaining unit as a whole. Other motivations
that were advanced by USAPA, the jury found, were simply pretextual.
Following a bench trial on remedy, the Court ordered injunctive relief that
permanently enjoined and ordered USAPA to:
(1) make all reasonable efforts to negotiate and implement a single [CBA] …
that will implement the Nicolau Award seniority proposal …;
(2) [m]ake all reasonable efforts to support and defend the … Nicolau Award in
negotiations with US Airways; and
(3) [n]ot negotiate for separate collective bargaining agreements for the separate
pilot groups….
USAPA appealed the injunction. The Ninth Circuit did not reach the merits of
the appeal because it held that the case was not ripe for injunctive relief, partly because
the district court cannot fashion a[n] [injunctive] remedy that will alleviate Plaintiffs
harm. Addington, 606 F.3d at 1180. It explained that, under the district courts
injunction mandating USAPA to pursue the Nicolau Award, it is uncertain that the
West Pilots preferred seniority system ever would be effectuated. Id. at 1181. The
Ninth Circuit stated, however, that it le[ft] USAPA to bargain in good faith pursuant
to its DFR, with the interests of all members-both East and West in mind, under pain
of an unquestionably ripe DFR suit, once a contract is ratified. Id. at 1180, n.1.
The Ninth Circuit denied the West Pilots petition for rehearing en banc. On July
14, 2010, the West Pilots filed a motion to stay the mandate while they petitioned for
certiorari. USAPA immediately filed an opposition making clear its intention to push
US Airways to accept a date-of-hire seniority list as soon as the mandate issues. The
motion to stay is still pending before the Ninth Circuit.
While USAPA appealed, negotiation of a new CBA faltered. Now with a
mandate vacating the injunction on the horizon, USAPA has announced its intention to
4
demand US Airways accept a date-of-hire seniority list. On July 26, 2010, US Airways
filed US Airways, a declaratory action seeking a ruling as to whether USAPAs
continued insistence on and/or entry into a collective bargaining agreement which does
not incorporate the Nicolau Award is or is not a breach of USAPAs duties under the
Railway Labor Act, and, if it is, whether US Airways would incur liability to West
Pilots if it were to agree to a CBA that did not use the Nicolau Award. A copy of the
Complaint is attached hereto.
II. LEGAL ARGUMENT
A. Standard of Decision
Pursuant to the Local Rules for the District of Arizona,
Any party may file a motion to transfer the case . . . to a single Judge
whenever two or more cases are pending before different Judges and . . .
such cases: (1) arise from substantially the same transaction or event; (2)
involve substantially the same parties or property; . . . (4) call for
determination of substantially the same questions of law; or (5) for any
other reason would entail substantial duplication of labor if heard by
different Judges.
LRCiv 42.1(a).
The standard for transfer pursuant to LRCiv 42.1 is similar to the standard
for consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
and district courts have broad discretion in determining whether to grant
such motions. By its terms, LRCiv 42.1(a)(1) does not require that each of
its subsections be shown before a transfer is proper thereunder.
Gagan v. Estate of Sharar, 2008 WL 2810978, *2 (D. Ariz. 2008) (citations omitted);
Parra v. Bashas Inc., 2009 WL 1024615, *5 (D. Ariz. 2009) (same). The purpose of
assigning related cases to the same judge is to promote judicial efficiency and to avoid
the necessity of a new judge learning a complex factual scenario from the beginning.
See In re Marshall, 291 B.R. 855, 859 (Bankr. C.D. Cal. 2003).
B. LRCiv 42.1 supports accepting the transfer of US Airways.
Four subsections of LRCiv 42.1 apply here. First, Addington and US Airways
arise from substantially the same transaction or events because both arise from the
2005 merger and the integration of the pilot seniority lists. Second, both cases involve
5
substantially the same parties because, until US Airways was dismissed from the
Addington litigation, the same parties participated in both matters. Indeed, even after it
was dismissed as a party, US Airways closely observed the trial to protect its interests.
Third, both cases involve the determination of substantially the same questions of
law because both involve nuances of USAPAs duty of fair representation in regard
to seniority integration and the ripeness of claims related thereto.
Finally, there would surely be substantial duplication of effort if US Airways
were not transferred to this Court. That well over 600 items were filed and that it was
necessary for the Court to draft a detailed 53 page Findings of Fact and Conclusions of
Law (doc. # 593) shows that the Court expended considerable effort on Addington and
that a judge new to this subject would have to expend much of that effort again if US
Airways were not transferred to this Court.
III. CONCLUSION
By filing its declaratory action, US Airways, in effect, rejoined Addington to
protect its interest. Rather than formally interplead in Addington, however, it filed a
new action. Surely, the most sensible course is to transfer US Airways to this Court.
Such transfer is well within the discretion provided by LRCiv 42.1. Plaintiffs,
therefore, respectfully, ask the Court to accept US Airways in transfer.
Dated this 27th day of July, 2010.
POLSINELLI SHUGHART, PC
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 27th day of July 2010, I electronically transmitted the
foregoing document to the U.S. District Court Clerks Office by using the ECF System
for filing and transmittal.
By/s/ Anxxxxxxxx
No, unlike the east we honor our commitments and behave like grownups.
Actually, I would think the desperation meter is pegged right now over in usapa central.
This is not a Hail Mary by any sense. This is normal protocol within the district court, and likely to be granted.
Remember, AOL did not file this request, the company did. If the company is simply interested in a timely resolution to the dispute, as they say in their request, then they should have no objection to judge Wake hearing this, as that would be the most expeditious, economic path toward resolution.
Please refer to the honorable Judge Wake as the "spanked desert judge" in any correspondence with the district court.
Utter BS. I don't think you could possibly even name one!
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
