There are too many East idiots that believe Nos' lies. That's why I keep asking him for proof. Perhaps you'd like to offer some proof since Nos obviously can't - he knows they're lies but is such a low life he can't stop lying.
One Eastie even claimed that it was impossible for Nos to prove his claims since "you can't prove a negative", but they couldn't even get that right since disproving Nos' accusations would require me proving a negative - that I didn't do this or that or have a relative on the West side.
Jim
"But the substantive rulings in Addington have been vacated pursuant to mandate, and both cases would now write on clean slates if there were anything to write in Addington, which there is not. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B). (Doc. 659.) The Addington proceedings are concluded"
More Light Reading for Jim and his nephew, now Jim where is that Nic list imposed by Judge Wake after the 9th ruled?
The Swan
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 663 Filed 10/14/10 Page 3 of 5
Firth v. United States, 554 F.2d 990, 993-94 (9th Cir. 1977) (citations and footnote
omitted). Further:
When a case has been decided by this court on appeal and remanded to the
District Court, every question which was before this court and disposed of
by its decree is finally settled and determined. The District Court is bound
by the decree and must carry it into execution according to the mandate. It
cannot alter it, examine it except for purposes of execution, or give any
further or other relief or review it for apparent error with respect to any
question decided on appeal, and can only enter a judgment or decree in
strict compliance with the opinion and mandate . . .
(The District Court) is
without power to do anything which is contrary to either the letter or spirit
of the mandate construed in the light of the opinion of this court deciding the case.
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 666 Filed 10/19/10 Page 3 of 11
On June 4, 2010, the Court of Appeals held that the plaintiffs’ duty of fair
representation claim was not ripe and remanded the case with directions that the action be dismissed. Addington, 606 F.3d at 1184. On August 10, 2010, the Court of Appeals mandate in Addington issued, effecting its judgment entered June 4, 2010. (Doc. 647.)
On August 13, 2010, pursuant to the mandate, the Court ordered the Clerk to enter judgment dismissing Addington for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 650.)On October 13, 2010, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ motion for relief from the judgment
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 666 Filed 10/19/10 Page 4 of 11
III. Analysis
A. Factors to Be Considered in Determining a Motion to Transfer a
Related Case Under LRCiv 42.1 Weigh in Favor of Transfer.
Both Addington and US Airways arise from substantially the same transaction or
event, i.e., the necessity of merging pilot seniority lists as a result of the 2005 airline merger. They involve the same parties, except for US Airways, which was dismissed early in the Addington litigation. They both involve the pilots' seniority rights and call for determination of substantially the same questions of law. US Airways will call for determination of substantial new questions of ripeness and new substantive questions of Railway Labor Act law applicable to US Airways. Substantive matters related to US Airways were considered in Addington and have not yet been considered in US Airways.
But the substantive rulings in Addington have been vacated pursuant to mandate, and both cases would now write on clean slates if there were anything to write in Addington, which
there is not. pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(B). (Doc. 659.) The Addington proceedings are concluded.
- 4 -
Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 666 Filed 10/19/10 Page 11 of 11
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Transfer Related Case, Pursuant to
LRCiv 42.1 (Doc. 642) is denied.
DATED this 18th day of October, 2010
Neil V. Wake
United States District Judge
-11-
