Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633-15/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

Defendant USAPA has petitioned the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to

permit an interlocutory appeal of this Court’s order granting class certification under Rule

23(b)(2) (doc. # 248). USAPA now moves in this Court for a stay of the April 28, 2009 trial

in furtherance of that petition. Though the Court of Appeals has not yet permitted an appeal

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(f), this Court will rule on the motion now to prevent distraction from

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 288 Filed 03/26/09 Page 1 of 4
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 -

the work of preparing for trial. The motion will be denied because a stay would pose grave

harm to the interests of the litigants and the public.

The decision whether to issue a stay pending appeal depends upon four factors: “(1)

whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the

merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether

issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceedings;

and (4) where the public interest lies.” Sporrans Inc. v. Celiac, 526 F.3d 406, 408 (9th Cir.

2008). None of these factors supports the grant of a stay in this case.

I. Irreparable Injury to USAPA

As a practical matter, the certification order itself threatens no irreparable injury to

USAPA. The trial now set for April 28, 2009, is the same trial that would have occurred if

no class had been certified. The liability and injunctive remedy issues set for trial must be

decided as to the named plaintiffs. The trial will also address USAPA’s ripeness contentions,

which arise out of obvious factual disputes. If the Court of Appeals permits an appeal and

reverses the class certification, it would not change the issues at trial or the scope of relief

except to limit USAPA’s own privilege of res judicata in the event of a defense verdict.

USAPA never addresses this circumstance. 

Even though this Court deferred any proceedings on quantification of the claims for

return or suspension of union dues or fees, this Court has now granted Defendant USAPA’s

Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings on that claim. Such a trial on

individualized class-member issues need not take place. At the conclusion of the upcoming

trial, a judgment on that claim will be entered in USAPA’s favor against the Plaintiffs and

the plaintiff class. 

Thus, if there were any error in the class certification, it is utterly without consequence

for the April 28, 2009 trial. A stay of the trial cannot serve any purpose of remedying an

erroneous class certification order.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 288 Filed 03/26/09 Page 2 of 4
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

- 3 -

II. Likelihood of Success on the Merits

This is a paradigm of a proper injunction class, with vigorous class representatives and

capable class counsel. Indeed, the injunctive relief necessary for the named plaintiffs alone

amounts to class relief, thus probably making this a proper Rule 23(b)(1) class as well.

USAPA identifies no true jurisdictional conflict with administrative proceedings involving

US Airways, as explained in prior orders. Plaintiffs were allowed to proceed on a general

theory of fair representation that is not tied to the contractual duties of US Airways currently

before the administrative board. (Doc. ## 84(20-21), 250.) Nor is it appropriate to address

in this context USAPA’s claim that its constitution poses a conflict between the jurisdiction

of the Court and the jurisdiction of the National Mediation Board. This specific issue was

not raised in USAPA’s Rule 12(b)(1) motion (see Doc. # 36(15-16)) and is first suggested

in the stay motion itself. Assuming this delayed issue may properly be considered, it can be

addressed with an opportunity to develop facts and without prejudicial postponement of trial.

Any question of the propriety of including individualized monetary relief in this Rule

23(b)(2) injunction class is now mooted by USAPA’s entire victory on the issue of refunding

dues and fees.

III. Injury to Other Parties

Further delay in deciding this case on its merits would visit great harm on the Plaintiff

class and their employer, US Airways. A stay will effectively foreclose the possibility of a

timely resolution of this case, a case where effective relief depends upon timing. US

Airways is in the process of furloughing Plaintiffs and West Pilot class members. According

to the allegations, USAPA has improperly caused this harm by breaching its duty of fair

representation. USAPA is said to have cast aside its obligation to West Pilot interests by

refusing to bargain toward the adoption of a new collective bargaining agreement that would

result in integrated operations under the Nicolau Award. As long as no new collective

bargaining agreement is adopted, separate operations persist and the West Pilots lack the job

security and other career benefits they would enjoy under the Nicolau Award. If USAPA

follows through on its allegedly wrongful promises, the West Pilots are said to face the

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 288 Filed 03/26/09 Page 3 of 4
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

- 4 -

permanent deprivation of wages, benefits, and working conditions. A stay would expose the

Plaintiffs to these continuing harms while giving USAPA only the benefit of illegitimate

delay. 

IV. The Public Interest

For similar reasons, a stay would offend rather than serve the public interest. This

unresolved dispute stands in the way of the integrated operations of a major national airline

in a troubled economy. There is a broader public interest in relieving US Airways of this

toxic dispute, however it is resolved.

A narrower but still pressing public interest also weighs against a stay. After seven

months of extensive litigation, this injunction case is now only four weeks from a trial that

will yield a complete record for plenary review by the Court of Appeals. This Court has

expended substantial resources to ensure that this time-urgent case is disposed of

expeditiously, even as it granted USAPA additional time to conduct briefing and discovery.

There is little prospect of finding another window in the Court’s trial calendar before October

or November. The parties and the Court are in the midst of final trial preparation. To stop

now would squander these efforts.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant USAPA’s motion for stay pending

appeal (doc. # 260) is denied.

DATED this March 25, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 288 Filed 03/26/09 Page 4 of 4