US Pilots Labor Discussion

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

MM;

Don't type angry. It makes your statements inaccurate (not to mention a run-on sentence):

(from Contract 2004)

E. International Override

1. A Captain shall receive, in addition to any other
pay, an international premium of $4.00 per hour,
prorated to the nearest minute, for operating or
deadheading on an international segment as
defined in Subsection 3.E.2. A First Officer shall
receive, in addition to any other pay, an international
premium of $3.00 per hour, prorated to the
nearest minute, for operating or deadheading
on an international segment as defined in Subsection
3.E.2.

2. For purposes of this Subsection 3.E., an “inter-
national segment” means a Company scheduled
or charter flight which has a landing or takeoff
outside the boundaries of the United States,
Canada and Mexico
(FYI; Hawaii & Costa Rica are international destinations. I'm sorry to have confused you with facts.)
[/Wow 4 international destinations I don't see how you do it!, I'm sure not as angry as this individual.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vG83596C_GY

 

[traderjake]

I don't think a United, Delta, or American pilot's happiness depends on my opinion of their respective unions. I bet most of them would speculate that the sentiment is probably mutual

I'm glad you're happy with USAPA.

At $125/85 per hour USAPA makes Doug happy too.

 

[AWA320]

awa320, you need to spend more time in the bathroom with your magazine, it will help your limp disposition. think USAPA and you will have a sunny day.

My point exactly, see how miserable you are? You and your fellow easties have no other recourse than to attack. Is this really the best you can do? I know the truth hurts son and you are full of fear but this all soon pass and we will all be under the Nic with an imposed contract. I dont much care for the imposed contract per say but its what you in the east obviously want so here we go. I am looking fwd now to coming to PHL or CLT and having you swing gear for me and if not you, one of your other east brothers/sisters. We will have fun and we wont even discuss final and binding arbitration as I know that will be a sore subject.

Remember, you asked for this.

AWA320

 

[Phoenix]

I'm glad you're happy with USAPA.

At $125/85 per hour USAPA makes Doug happy too.

There you go again, searching for our premise of happiness, with a misguided aim.

Good news.. this isn't the fair, so you don't have to pay five bucks for another swing of the bat... but you do have two strikes already.

 

[luvthe9]

Everybody get your last few digs in tonight and plan on staying off this board, on 24th and 25th go spend time with your family, they miss you. I promise this will all be here on the 26th. Only the true "whack jobs" will show up if any. Merry Christmas to all!!!!!

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

Co-Defendants Have Exhibited a Pattern of Advancing Positions Devoid of
Any Basis in the Law.
Co-defendants have exhibited a pattern of advancing legal arguments devoid of
any basis in the law. When asked to present supporting authority they have admitted
they have none. For example:
 When asked in motion hearing in Addington if he had any cases to support his
damages theory (the same included as part of the current cross-claim), counsel
responded by admitting that it was “not the first time I have been asked if I
have any cases on point, and I don’t.” (Decl., Ex. G) (emphasis added).
 In October of this year, when pressed by Judge Wake as to whether he had any
case law whatsoever to support his 60(B) ripeness argument (the same made in
the Response here), counsel had no choice but to admit that he “didn’t have any
such cases.” (Decl., Ex. H) (emphasis added).
These examples illustrate that “[t]here is a point beyond which zeal becomes
vexation ... and transforms to obdurateness.” Ramirez, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 204. That line
has been crossed here. In the absence of the co-defendants’ voluntary restraint, USAPA
has been forced to request that this Court impose sanctions on co-defendants and their
counsel in order to deter further violations. USAPA's DEC 20 filing MERRY CHRISTMAS!

 

[cleardirect]

Co-Defendants Have Exhibited a Pattern of Advancing Positions Devoid of
Any Basis in the Law.
Co-defendants have exhibited a pattern of advancing legal arguments devoid of
any basis in the law. When asked to present supporting authority they have admitted
they have none. For example:
 When asked in motion hearing in Addington if he had any cases to support his
damages theory (the same included as part of the current cross-claim), counsel
responded by admitting that it was “not the first time I have been asked if I
have any cases on point, and I don’t.” (Decl., Ex. G) (emphasis added).
 In October of this year, when pressed by Judge Wake as to whether he had any
case law whatsoever to support his 60(B) ripeness argument (the same made in
the Response here), counsel had no choice but to admit that he “didn’t have any
such cases.” (Decl., Ex. H) (emphasis added).
These examples illustrate that “[t]here is a point beyond which zeal becomes
vexation ... and transforms to obdurateness.” Ramirez, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 204. That line
has been crossed here. In the absence of the co-defendants’ voluntary restraint, USAPA
has been forced to request that this Court impose sanctions on co-defendants and their
counsel in order to deter further violations. USAPA's DEC 20 filing MERRY CHRISTMAS!

B. Seham improperly threatens Rule 11 as a litigation tactic. Seham is a New York law firm that is appearing in this case pro hac vice. As evidenced by its course of conduct here, Seham’s routine practice is to aggressively attack anyone who challenges or disagrees with its positions. It did this with Judge Wake, accusing him of bias whenever he disagreed with its position in Addington.

Prior to filing its Rule 11 motion in US Airways, Seham threatened on three other separate occasions to make a Rule 11 motion in Addington.

Filing a frivolous Rule 11 motion “is itself subject to the requirements of the rule and can lead to sanctions.” Rule 11, 1993 Advisory Comm. Notes. “[A] Rule 11 motion must never be used as a mere tactic to bolster a response — whether meritorious or not — to a motion or pleading.” Caribbean Wholesales & Service Corp. v. U.S. JVC Corp., 101 F.Supp.2d 236, 246 (S.D.N.Y. 2000). “Conducting litigation with civility requires, at the least, restraint from threatening opposing counsel with baseless Rule 11 motions.” Stevenson v. Employers Mut. Ass’n, 960 F. Supp. 141, 145, n3 (N.D. Ill. 1997). “Rule 11 should never be used as a litigation tactic for intimidating opposing counsel from asserting a meritorious position.” Edberg v. Neogen Corp., 17 F. Supp. 2d 104, 109 (D. Conn. 1998).

B. Standards for Rule 11 sanctions.
A court may appropriately impose Rule 11 sanctions in only two situations: (1) “where a litigant makes a ‘frivolous filing,’ that is, where he files a pleading or other paper which no competent attorney would believe was well grounded in fact and warranted by law;” and (2) “where a litigant files a pleading or paper for an ‘improper purpose,’ such as personal or economic harassment.” Greenberg v. Sala, 822 F.2d 882, 885 (9th Cir.

1987) (internal citations omitted); see Rule 11(B)(1) & (2).

I guess that pretty much covers the RICO suit. Which no competent attorney thought was well grounded. The RICO was filed to impose personal and economic harassment on the defendants. To bad the RICO defendants did not file a rule 11 back then.

III. CONCLUSION
Seham filed a frivolous Rule 11 motion for an improper purpose. The Addington Pilots respectfully ask the Court to deny relief on USAPA’s motion and to award them the reasonable attorneys’ fees incurred responding to the motion.

 

[cleardirect]

Co-Defendants Have Exhibited a Pattern of Advancing Positions Devoid of
Any Basis in the Law.
Co-defendants have exhibited a pattern of advancing legal arguments devoid of
any basis in the law. When asked to present supporting authority they have admitted
they have none. For example:
 When asked in motion hearing in Addington if he had any cases to support his
damages theory (the same included as part of the current cross-claim), counsel
responded by admitting that it was “not the first time I have been asked if I
have any cases on point, and I don’t.” (Decl., Ex. G) (emphasis added).
 In October of this year, when pressed by Judge Wake as to whether he had any
case law whatsoever to support his 60(B) ripeness argument (the same made in
the Response here), counsel had no choice but to admit that he “didn’t have any
such cases.” (Decl., Ex. H) (emphasis added).
These examples illustrate that “[t]here is a point beyond which zeal becomes
vexation ... and transforms to obdurateness.” Ramirez, 491 F. Supp. 2d at 204. That line
has been crossed here. In the absence of the co-defendants’ voluntary restraint, USAPA
has been forced to request that this Court impose sanctions on co-defendants and their
counsel in order to deter further violations. USAPA's DEC 20 filing MERRY CHRISTMAS!

I guess Seham missed this page of the response. The part where he sites case law.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Cases
Addington v. US Airline Pilots Ass’n,
606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010)..........................................................2
Caribbean Wholesales & Service Corp. v. U.S. JVC Corp.,
101 F.Supp.2d 236 (S.D.N.Y. 2000) .................................................6
Carter v. United States,
973 F.2d 1479 (9th Cir. 1992)..........................................................8
Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp.,
496 U.S. 384 (1990).......................................................................12
Di Silvestro v. United States,
767 F.2d 30 (2d Cir. 1985).............................................................10
Edberg v. Neogen Corp.,
17 F. Supp. 2d 104 (D. Conn. 1998) ................................................6
Gaiardo v. Ethyl Corp.,
835 F.2d 479 (3d Cir. 1987).............................................................8
Garner v. Wolfinbarger,
430 F.2d 1093 (5th Cir. 1970)..........................................................5
Golden Eagle Distrib. Corp. v. Burroughs Corp.,
801 F.2d 1531 (9th Cir. 1986)...................................................... 7, 8
Gomez v. Vernon,
255 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2001)........................................................10
Greenberg v. Sala,
822 F.2d 882 (9th Cir. 1987).............................................. 6, 8, 9, 10
Hudson v. Moore Business Forms, Inc.,
836 F.2d 1156 (9th Cir. 1987)..........................................................8
Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue,
167 F.R.D. 649 (S.D.N.Y. 1996)........................................................8
Margolis v. Ryan,
140 F.3d 850 (9th Cir.1998)...........................................................13
Maryland Cas. Co. v. Pac. Coal & Oil Co.,
312 U.S. 270 (1941).........................................................................9
Matter of Yagman,
796 F.2d 1165 (9th Cir. 1986)........................................................12
Morristown Daily Record, Inc. v. Graphic Comm. Union, Loc. 8N,
832 F.2d 31 (3d Cir. 1987)...............................................................8
Nakash v. U.S. Dept. of Justice,
708 F. Supp. 1354 (S.D.N.Y. 1988) ..................................................6
Neitzke v. Williams,
490 U.S. 319 (1989).........................................................................7
New Alaska Dev. Corp. v. Guetschow,
869 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1989)........................................................12
O’Malley v. New York City Transit Auth.,
896 F.2d 704 (2d Cir. 1990).............................................................7
Operating Engineers Pension Trust v. A-C Co.,
859 F.2d 1336 (9th Cir.1988)...........................................................8
Pacific Harbor Capital, Inc. v. Carnival Air Lines, Inc.,
210 F.3d 1112 (9th Cir. 2000)........................................................11
Rachel v. Banana Republic, Inc.,
831 F.2d 1503 (9th Cir. 1987).................................................... 7, 10
Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co.,
323 U. S. 192 (1944)......................................................................11
Stevenson v. Employers Mut. Ass’n,
960 F. Supp. 141 (N.D. Ill. 1997) .....................................................6
Tahfs v. Proctor,
316 F.3d 584 (6th Cir.2003)....................................................... 7, 10
Van Sickle v. Holloway,
791 F.2d 1431 (10th Cir. 1986)......................................................10

Statutes
28 U.S.C. § 1915(d).............................................................................7
28 U.S.C. § 1927 ........................................................ ii, 10, 11, 12, 13
Other Authorities
Restatement (Second) of Judgments § 17 (1982).................................11
Rules
Fed. R. App. P., Rule 38....................................................................10
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 11 ..............................................................passim
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 12(B)(6) ...............................................................7
Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 13(g) ............................................................. 3, 11
LRCiv. 42.1(a) .....................................................................................2

 

[MUTATIS MUTANDIS]

I guess Seham missed this page of the response. The part where he sites case law.

dismissing? I'm looking for facts, cases with that procedural
context. Because looking through your cases, you cite a lot of
cases. I appreciate that. But I didn't really think I found
any that had -- that were horses of that same color and spots.
MR. JACOB: You are right. And I'm not hiding the
ball. I didn't have any such cases. No LEE didn't but JACOB did! MM

 

[streaman]

My thanks to whoever cancelled THEIR " pilot is sick" flight today and stranded my girlfriend in soggy phonix tonight...thanks alot.

 

[MyJ4JjobSucks]

My thanks to whoever cancelled THEIR " pilot is sick" flight today and stranded my girlfriend in soggy phonix tonight...thanks alot.

That would be to DP for under staffing the airline.

 

[AWA320]

dismissing? I'm looking for facts, cases with that procedural
context. Because looking through your cases, you cite a lot of
cases. I appreciate that. But I didn't really think I found
any that had -- that were horses of that same color and spots.
MR. JACOB: You are right. And I'm not hiding the
ball. I didn't have any such cases. No LEE didn't but JACOB did! MM

How many of those cases have you read??

AWA320

 

[cynic]

How many of those cases have you read??

AWA320

He'll read just far enough to find some line that, taken out of context, will support whatever claim he feels like making today.

 

[AWA320]

He'll read just far enough to find some line that, taken out of context, will support whatever claim he feels like making today.

Thats just what I thought but I figured I would give him the benefit of the doubt.

AWA320

 

[767one]

My thanks to whoever cancelled THEIR " pilot is sick" flight today and stranded my girlfriend in soggy phonix tonight...thanks alot.

Streaman,

Sorry your girlfriend got stranded but it is now and always has been a management problem. I've been a pilot here for almost 38 years and I've noticed a pattern. The airline is not staffed for the worst day, it is not staffed for the average day, it is only staffed based on every day being a perfect day. No consideration is given to flu and cold season, adverse weather, atc problems, or the fact all the employees are getting older. It has been their lack of management skills which has put this place in the position where there is no new blood coming in. They will continue to operate this way at least until the next transaction and if they are in the position to stay after the next merger then the place will continue to be short staffed.

Merry Christmas,

Bob Moore