Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:151 Railway Labor Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark

Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;

Steve Wargocki,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

US Airline Pilots Association; US

Airways, Inc.,

Defendants. __________________________________

Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark

Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;

Steve Wargocki, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Steven Bradford; Paul Diorio; Robert

Frear; Mark King; Douglas Mowery; John

Stephan, et al., 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW

(consolidated)

ORDER

CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

Before the Court is Defendant USAPA’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Reply in Support

of Their Motion for Class Certification (doc. # 217), which contends that the reply was filed

late on February 27, 2009. The Court previously granted USAPA’s contested motion for

extension of time to file its response. (Doc. # 155.) USAPA now contends that because its

extension was granted and the order said nothing about extending Plaintiffs’ time for reply,

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 220 Filed 03/02/09 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Plaintiffs were required to file a reply in accordance with the original briefing schedule, as

though USAPA had not been granted an extension on its response. This is a wholly

unreasonable view of the extension order, which did not purport to override the terms of

Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and LRCiv 7.2(d), giving a moving party five days—plus three days for

service other than personal delivery—to reply to a response brief. The Court’s mistaken

reference in passing in doc. # 210 to February 26 as the close of briefing, rather than the

correct date of February 27, 2009, does not shorten Plaintiff’s time. That subsequent order

relating to the possibility of an evidentiary hearing grants no such relief (doc. # 210 at p. 2,

lines 3-20).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant USAPA’s Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’

Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification (doc. # 217) is denied.

DATED this 2nd day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 220 Filed 03/02/09 Page 2 of 2