crazystnic
Veteran
- Sep 28, 2010
- 781
- 727
US Pilots Labor Discussion
- Thread starter Richard
- Start date
- Status
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Perhaps you are confused. We don't live in a democracy and very few (if any) pure democracies exist anywhere. We live in a Representative Republic where the people elect representative leaders who make decisions with or without the express will (i.e. vote) of the people they represent.
This is where the east is so often confused about replacing their elected representative agent (ALPA). Replacing ALPA (the agent) does not automatically repeal the agreements made by the elected representative. Changing agents does not create a clean slate for those being represented. For example, the American people may vote Obama out of office in 2012, but that vote of the people will not automatically repeal Obamacare or any other abominable legislation he has signed into law. In order for that to happen, the newly elected representatives will have to enact new laws to reform or repeal the existing laws.
So too, USAPA will have to enact a new contract (JCBA) in order to get out of the former agreements (LOA93/TA) and the terms and conditions contained therein. Of course the TA calls for the NIC to be implemented in the JCBA so USAPA will be unable to change the seniority integration that has already been decided and agreed to by all parties – east pilots’ agent, west pilots’ agent, and Management. Now the only way to alter that agreement (TA/NIC) is to have the same parties agree to do so, and that is nearly impossible to do with Management refusing to accept anything other than the NIC, and with no west MEC to speak for the west pilots who have rights under the TA.
In short, the will of the majority cannot simply be imposed on the whole without going through the proper and legal processes, and thus far USAPA hasn't accomplished anything with regards to seniority integration and likely never will.
And you spent 2MILL+ and more telling us that, good for you CALLAWAY!
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
Great Googlie Mooglie!!
The Mighty Marty “Harpie-r “ whacked by Judge “Rosylin” the ROD O’silver. Legal malpractice and professional negligence, Read on.
NO. CIV-04-1367 PHX ROS
ENERGEX ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation; and BRAD GEUKE, an
individual, Plaintiffs,
vs.
SHUGHART, THOMSON & KILROY, P.C., a Missouri
professional corporation d/b/a SHUGHART THOMSON KILROY GOODWIN
RAUP; and, MARTY HARPER, EDWARD R. GLADY, JR., VICTORIA STEVENS,
and KELLY FLOOD, individuals, and BLACK & WHITE CORPORATIONS
I-X; and JOHN DOES I-X and JANE DOES I-X, Defendants. SHUGHART,
THOMSON & KILROY, P.C., a Missouri professional corporation d/b/a
SHUGHART THOMSON KILROY GOODWIN RAUP, Counterclaimant, vs. ENERGEX
ENTERPRISES, INC., a Colorado corporation, Counterdefendant.
NO. CIV-04-1367 PHX ROS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58395
August 17, 2006, Decided
OPINION BY: Roslyn O. Silver
On July 2, 2004, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint against Defendants (Doc. # 1), followed by an Amended Complaint on October 7, 2004 (Doc. # 4). Plaintiffs allege two counts: professional negligence and breach of contract. Both counts are based on Defendants' representation for the settlement and drafting of the settlement agreement in the first civil action.
B. Causation
Defendants have moved for Partial Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' legal malpractice claim. In order to
prove legal malpractice, Plaintiffs must establish "(1) the existence of an attorney-client relationship which imposes a duty on the attorney to exercise that degree of skill, care and knowledge commonly exercised by members of the profession, (2) breach of that duty, (3) that such negligence was a proximate cause of resulting injury, and (4) the fact and extent of the injury." Phillips v. Clancy, 152 Ariz. 415, 733 P.2d 300, 303 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1987). Plaintiffs claim that Defendants' negligent representation and negligent drafting of the settlement agreement caused them various damages including lost revenues, attorneys' fees, and emotional pain and suffering.
A. Legal Standard
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c), after pleadings are closed any party may move for judgment on the pleadings. "A district court will render a judgment on the pleadings when the moving party clearly establishes on the face of the pleadings that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law."
B. Breach of Contract
Defendants have moved for Judgment on the Pleadings regarding Claim II, the Breach of Contract claim.
(Doc. # 85) Under Arizona law, breach of the duties owed by attorneys to their clients arises out of tort, not contract. Barmat v. John & Jane Doe Partners, 155 Ariz. 519, 747 P.2d 1218, 1222 (Ariz. 1987) ("The cause of action for malpractice would exist even if the client or patient had expressly declined the professional's services."). A legal malpractice claim can only arise out of contract if there is evidence of a specific promise that was breached apart from the duty imposed by law.
OPINION AND ORDER
Pending before the Court is Defendants' Motion forPartial Summary Judgment (Doc. # 64), Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 85), and a number of [*2] procedural and evidentiary motions. For the following reasons, Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment will be denied and the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings will be granted.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED trial is set for November 14, 2006 at 9 a.m.
DATED this 17th day of August, 2006.
Rosiyn O. Silver
United States District Judge
You can all bet your bippies that Marty didn’t go to trial.(Lexus Nexus has no trial record of this complaint.) They did a deal.
Ouch….that’s gotta hurt. Hey Marty…there goes an ambulance, fetch boy, fetch.
Zone5
Veteran
- Dec 17, 2010
- 773
- 696
You are correct with respect to both the form of government here in the United States (a Representative Republic) and the similar manner in which the former bargaining agent (ALPA) conducted themselves. ALPA got themselves voted off the property by a majority of those they represented. USAPA is now the legally elected, sole bargaining agent for all UselessAirways pilots, like it or not. Company management is obligated to bargain with USAPA and they know it. The will of the majority will be reflected in any JCBA reached by USAPA and the company negotiators, unless of course an agreement cannot be reached and the parties are released for "self help". The court has given USAPA a clean sheet of paper to craft a JCBA on. What that JCBA ultimately consists of will be voted on and the will of a majority of pilots will prevail, at least until such time as a "ripe" DFR action is brought and adjudicated.
Management has not refused to "accept anything other than the NIC", in fact Dougie has specifically characterized the NIC as being in "dispute". He has also stated that he does not care how the seniority issue is settled, as evidenced by his flippant suggestion that it could be done alphabetically as far as he is concerned. What he has said and I believe is his only concern in the matter, is that however the seniority dispute is ultimately settled, it must not create otherwise unnecessary additional training costs.
seajay
AWA320
Veteran
Company letter regarding loa 93
This is what the closed meeting over loa 93 was about.
Company letter to Arbitrator re: LOA93
U·S AIRWAYS
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe. AZ 85281
480.693.5805
Fax: 480.693.5932\
VIAFEDEX
Richard R. Kasher, Esquire
430 Clairemont Road
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-1707
August 27, 2010
Re: US Airways and USAPA - Case Number BPR 09-06-02 East (Snap Back wage case)
Dear Arbitrator Kasher:
This will respond to the August 23,2010 letter sent by Union Board member Theresa Murphy. Ms. Murphy's letter requests that you delay issuing to Board members a draft Opinion in this case, instead issue only a draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, and then "allow for the possible opportunity for a follow-up face-to-face executive session prior to issuing the draft Opinion." We oppose this request, for the following reasons:
1. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy will cause an additional significant delay in the conclusion of this case. This delay will occur due to her belated request for a two-step bifurcated preparation of the Opinion, and due to the request for a "face-to-face meeting." In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that delay is her motive for making the request. This is not acceptable to the Company or to the many pilots affected by this grievance. As you will recall, the completion of this case has already been delayed by USAPA's prior requests. Although we finished the evidentiary hearing on February 4, 2010, we could not close the record until April 28, due to USAPA's desire to submit additional expert testimony (eventually via offer of proof, but only after counsel was required to schedule a conference call with you on April 8, to ensure that the case would be concluded without further delay). This is a grievance over staggering sums of money that USAPA chose to publicize to all the pilots. That publicity has an obvious impact on the Company and its pilots. In that circumstance, we respectfully request that USAP A not be permitted to cause any further delay to the final resolution of this case.2. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy has the effect of allowing for a second round of advocacy, even after counsel for each party submitted extensive written briefs to you on June 11. That is inappropriate. In this regard, we note that Ms. Murphy is a lawyer in the same law firm as Ms. Edwards (counsel for USAPA in this case), and has frequently represented USAPA as its advocate in other system board hearings involving US Airways.
3. To the extent Ms. Murphy is .concerned about the accuracy of your draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, she -- and all Board members -- will have a full opportunity to review and offer corrections when you circulate your full draft Opinion. That is the conventional and appropriate process. Of course, in this case, it is highly unlikely that correction will be needed as to the Statement of Facts/Statbement of Positions because you have received extensive, well-written briefs from counsel for each side.
Thank you for your consideration of our opposition to Ms. Murphy's request.
Sincerely,
Paul Jones
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment
Beth Holdren
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment
Cc (via email): Theresa Murphy, Esquire
First Officer David Ciabattoni
Hmmmmm!!! My eastern folk, usapa has your very best monitary interest at heart
. You'll learn!!
AWA320
This is what the closed meeting over loa 93 was about.
Company letter to Arbitrator re: LOA93
U·S AIRWAYS
111 W. Rio Salado Parkway
Tempe. AZ 85281
480.693.5805
Fax: 480.693.5932\
VIAFEDEX
Richard R. Kasher, Esquire
430 Clairemont Road
Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085-1707
August 27, 2010
Re: US Airways and USAPA - Case Number BPR 09-06-02 East (Snap Back wage case)
Dear Arbitrator Kasher:
This will respond to the August 23,2010 letter sent by Union Board member Theresa Murphy. Ms. Murphy's letter requests that you delay issuing to Board members a draft Opinion in this case, instead issue only a draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, and then "allow for the possible opportunity for a follow-up face-to-face executive session prior to issuing the draft Opinion." We oppose this request, for the following reasons:
1. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy will cause an additional significant delay in the conclusion of this case. This delay will occur due to her belated request for a two-step bifurcated preparation of the Opinion, and due to the request for a "face-to-face meeting." In fact, it is hard to avoid the conclusion that delay is her motive for making the request. This is not acceptable to the Company or to the many pilots affected by this grievance. As you will recall, the completion of this case has already been delayed by USAPA's prior requests. Although we finished the evidentiary hearing on February 4, 2010, we could not close the record until April 28, due to USAPA's desire to submit additional expert testimony (eventually via offer of proof, but only after counsel was required to schedule a conference call with you on April 8, to ensure that the case would be concluded without further delay). This is a grievance over staggering sums of money that USAPA chose to publicize to all the pilots. That publicity has an obvious impact on the Company and its pilots. In that circumstance, we respectfully request that USAP A not be permitted to cause any further delay to the final resolution of this case.2. The process suggested by Ms. Murphy has the effect of allowing for a second round of advocacy, even after counsel for each party submitted extensive written briefs to you on June 11. That is inappropriate. In this regard, we note that Ms. Murphy is a lawyer in the same law firm as Ms. Edwards (counsel for USAPA in this case), and has frequently represented USAPA as its advocate in other system board hearings involving US Airways.
3. To the extent Ms. Murphy is .concerned about the accuracy of your draft Statement of Facts/Statement of Positions, she -- and all Board members -- will have a full opportunity to review and offer corrections when you circulate your full draft Opinion. That is the conventional and appropriate process. Of course, in this case, it is highly unlikely that correction will be needed as to the Statement of Facts/Statbement of Positions because you have received extensive, well-written briefs from counsel for each side.
Thank you for your consideration of our opposition to Ms. Murphy's request.
Sincerely,
Paul Jones
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment
Beth Holdren
Company Representative to the System Board of Adjustment
Cc (via email): Theresa Murphy, Esquire
First Officer David Ciabattoni
Hmmmmm!!! My eastern folk, usapa has your very best monitary interest at heart
. You'll learn!!AWA320
So is usapa going to claim that because Harper has been before Silver before, that she is biased when she sends usapa's DOH pipe dream packing?
CallawayGolf
Veteran
- Nov 13, 2009
- 1,920
- 1,961
Yes, they are. They are also obligated to honor the terms established by the Transition Agreement. USAPA has placed these two issues into conflict with one another which is why the Company filed the DJ. USAPA has asked Management to negotiate for something (DOH) that Management cannot accept without placing the Company into legal and financial peril. Thus, everyone seems to understand that USAPA has not been given a clean slate, except for USAPA and its supporters of course.
Actually we live in a constitutional republic.
Also, the company has refused to accept any seniority integration method. usapa passed a DOH list at the table after election, and the company handed it right back to them, because they already had officially accepted the Nic, and had to keep their appearence of neutrality.
Parker has characterized the Nic as being in "dispute", however, the dispute is between the east and West pilots, not usapa and the company. The company has their list, they accepted and paid for it as per their contractual obligations in the TA.
Who, what, why, when or how, ALPA got themselves voted off is irrelevent. How and why usapa got elected is all that matters. We will never see a non-Nic contract make it to a ratification vote. Heck, after the illegal shennanigans Cleary pulled on the 28th, I am starting to think we will never see a union on the property again.
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
Nope, USAPA aint gonna claim nuttin. Judge Silver has already sent Marty to trial on the basis of professional misconduct and USAPA has filed for sanctions on a case that has been dismissed at the appelate level. Plaintiffs admit is a defacto "carbon copy" of the origional Addington Ligitation, dismissed by the 9th circuit, and now filed in Judge Silver's court.
She has already seen how Marty opeates, if anyone should be filing a bias claim its Marty.
Yes, and Polsinelli has filed a counter-claim against the little lawyer who has harrassed them and the Addington plaintiffs with a constant barrage of rule 11 threats. My guess is the judge either says play nice, no harm either side, or sides with polsinelli against the lawfirm that brought a malicious RICO suit, and has threatened rulle 11 like 6 times now.
The other thing is, we are in front of Silver because the company filed, not because the West filed. Yes, it is a "carbon copy", and just like last time usapa is going to lose. The 9th dismissed on a really bad ripeness call. This case is ripe, if not on DFR grounds, then on grounds of simple fairness to all parties involved.
usapa is nothing more than a scumbag operation, led by the nose by a scumbag union busting attorney. Its followers and supporters are little more than whinning children trying to teach their parents a lesson about who owns the cookie jar. When usapa gets spanked into next week, It will hurt the rest of us more than them, but it is going to be your butts that are black and blue.
Save some of that lump sum and any profit sharing, usapa owes me and a bunch of West pilots a ton of money and we are coming to collect.
Reed Richards
Veteran
- Sep 2, 2009
- 1,389
- 1,161
My oh my. Guess that little tidbit about Marty hit you a little hard! Better toughen up..more to come.
RR
Any federal investigators show up at usapa headquarters yet?
Al Legheny
Advanced
- Jul 21, 2009
- 223
- 148
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
