Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633-22/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’s Motion to Change Venue and Transfer to Another

District, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (doc. # 622). Defendant US Airline Pilots

Association (“USAPA”) seeks to have this case transferred to the United States District

Court for the District of Columbia.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 632 Filed 01/21/10 Page 1 of 3
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 -

I. Legal Standard

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) places discretion in the district

courts “to adjudicate motions for transfer according to an individualized, case-by-case

consideration of convenience and fairness.” Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.,

487 U.S. 22, 23 (1988). Forum non conveniens considerations, such as balancing the

preference accorded the plaintiff’s choice of forum with the defendant’s burden of

litigating in an inconvenient forum, are helpful in deciding a § 1404(a) motion. Decker

Coal Co. v. Commonwealth Edison Co., 805 F.2d 834, 843 (9th Cir. 1986). However,

“[t]he defendant must make a strong showing of inconvenience to warrant upsetting the

plaintiff’s choice of forum.” Id.

The court must weigh multiple factors in its determination of convenience and

fairness, and it may consider the following:

(1) the location where the relevant agreements were

negotiated and executed, (2) the state that is most familiar

with the governing law, (3) the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (4)

the respective parties’ contacts with the forum, (5) the

contacts relating to the plaintiff’s cause of action in the

chosen forum, (6) the differences in the costs of litigation in

the two forums, (7) the availability of compulsory process to

compel attendance of unwilling non-party witnesses, and (8)

the ease of access to sources of proof.

Jones v. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 498-99 (9th Cir. 2000).

II. Analysis

This lawsuit involves the integration of pilot seniority lists upon the merger of US

Airways and America West Airlines, now operating under the name “US Airways” with

headquarters in Tempe, Arizona, and employing thousands of pilots residing in numerous

states across the country. A jury found USAPA breached its duty of fair representation

by abandoning an arbitrated seniority list in favor of a date-of-hire list solely to benefit

one group of pilots at the expense of another. Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief and money

damages.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 632 Filed 01/21/10 Page 2 of 3
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 -

 Most of the Jones factors are not relevant and do not favor either forum. This

case raises federal questions and will be decided under federal law. Neither side contends

they have unwilling non-party witnesses who must be compelled to testify at trial. Where

agreements were negotiated and the parties’ contacts with the forum have no bearing on

the issues to be decided. Whether the forum is Arizona or Washington, D.C., does not

affect the ease of access to sources of proof. 

The two relevant Jones factors, the plaintiff’s choice of forum and the differences

in the costs of litigation in the two forums, favor denying transfer. All six Plaintiffs

reside in the Phoenix area. Plaintiffs are represented by a Phoenix law firm, and

Plaintiffs’ counsel all reside in Arizona. USAPA, headquartered in Charlotte, N.C.,

estimates there are eighty to one hundred witnesses identified, many of whom reside

closer to Washington, D.C., than to Phoenix, but few of whom actually reside in

Washington, D.C. Litigating in Washington, D.C., instead of Arizona, may somewhat

decrease USAPA’s or individual witnesses’ costs, but would substantially increase

Plaintiffs’ costs and deny Plaintiffs their choice of forum. Testimony of dispersed

witnesses may be presented by deposition, if that is more convenient, regardless of the

forum.

Finally, this litigation has proceeded in this forum for nearly a year and a half,

including a lengthy jury trial on liability, numerous and extensive legal rulings, and great

expenditure of judicial resources. The waste of judicial resources from transfer to a

different judge in another district late in the litigation disfavors transfer. It would be a

bad exercise of discretion and likely an abuse of discretion. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Change Venue and

Transfer to Another District, Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (doc. # 622) is denied.

DATED this 21st day of January, 2010.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 632 Filed 01/21/10 Page 3 of 3