Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03125/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-cv-03125-2/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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN AIRLINES FLOW-THRU 

PILOTS COALITION, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

ALLIED PILOTS ASSOCIATION, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 15-cv-03125-RS 

ORDER GRANTING AMERICAN 

AIRLINES' MOTION TO DISMISS

Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b) the motion to dismiss the first claim for relief of the 

Second Amended Complaint insofar as it is alleged against defendant American Airlines has been 

submitted without oral argument. The motion will be granted. The claims against American in 

the prior complaint were dismissed because the facts alleged provided no basis to hold American 

liable for a breach of the union’s duty of fair representation. The order observed that the issue 

likely was not one that could be addressed merely through pleading additional facts; rather, the 

order effectively rejected the legal premise of plaintiffs’ claim. Nevertheless, at their request, 

plaintiffs were given leave to amend.

The revised and additional factual allegations of the Second Amended Complaint, 

however, do not alter the analysis. Plaintiffs’ basic theory remains that American may be held 

liable for colluding in the union’s breach of the union’s duty, not that American breached any 

independent duty it held towards plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ opposition to the present motion effectively 

seeks reconsideration of the prior order’s conclusion as to what does or does not constitute 

Case 3:15-cv-03125-RS Document 63 Filed 04/20/16 Page 1 of 2
CASE NO. 15-cv-03125-RS

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

actionable collusion, rather than attempting to establish that the amendments represent a 

substantial change in the factual allegations. While it is not procedurally improper for plaintiffs to 

reargue their prior position, they have not made a compelling showing that the previous dismissal 

order was in error, or that any of the revised or additional allegations are sufficient to impose 

liability on American for the union’s alleged breach of the duty of fair representation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 20, 2016

______________________________________

RICHARD SEEBORG

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-cv-03125-RS Document 63 Filed 04/20/16 Page 2 of 2