Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01728/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01728-1/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 Irapour; Roger Velez;

Steve Wargocki, 

Plaintiffs, 

vs.

Steven H. Bradford; Paul J. Diorio; Robert

A. Frear; Mark W. King; Douglas L.

Mowery; John A. Stephan, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV-08-1728-PHX-NVW

ORDER

Plaintiff pilots (“West Pilots”) brought this class action in state court against a

defendant class of other pilots (“East Pilots”) alleging breach of express and implied

contracts. The defendants removed the case to this court. Before the court is Defendants’

Motion to Dismiss Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), (2), (3), (6) and (7). Because of the

urgency of this and related litigation, the court will rule now on portions of the Motion which

need no response and will direct an accelerated response and reply on the remainder of the

Motion.

This complaint relates to an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement. The

circumstances of the transaction, the alleged harm, and the course of conduct complained of

are essentially the same facts that were pled in Addington v. US Airways. A prior order of

this court summarized those allegations and they need not be restated here. See Order,

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 21 Filed 11/21/08 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 -

Addington v. US Airways, No. CV-08-1633-PHX-NVW (Nov. 20, 2008) (Doc. # 84). The

instant case is distinguished only in that the plaintiffs raise state law claims, sue as

representatives of a class, and name a class of individual union members (rather than the

union itself) as defendants.

The following accelerated briefing schedule will be ordered. Plaintiffs shall file by

December 5, 2008, a response to the portions of the Motion that are not disposed of by this

order. Defendants may file a reply by December 12, 2008, at 5:00 p.m. The motion will be

set for oral argument on December 15, 2008, at 4:00 p.m. Of course, the parties should not

brief again matters upon which the court has already ruled in Addington v. US Airways, No.

CV-08-1633-PHX-NVW (Nov. 20, 2008) (Doc. # 84).

I. Rule 12(b)(3): Venue

Venue is proper because this case was removed to the “district and division

embracing” the place where the state law claim was pending. 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a). The East

Pilots waived any objection they may have had to venue when they voluntarily removed the

action to federal court. Gen. Inv. Co. v. Lake Shore & M.S. Ry. Co., 260 U.S. 261, 275-76

(1922). Thus, the East Pilots’ challenge to venue will be denied.

II. Rule 12(b)(7): Failure to Join a Party Required by Rule 19

The East Pilots suggest that the action must be dismissed for failure to join the West

Pilots’ former union, the Air Line Pilots Association (“ALPA”). There is no dispute that

ALPA played a role in negotiating the Transition Agreement and bringing about the

proceedings that resulted in the Nicolau Award. Nonetheless, Rule 19 does not require

joinder in this case. The East Pilots have made no showing that in ALPA’s absence,

complete relief cannot be accorded among the existing parties, according to whatever

particular liability or performance is owed. Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a). ALPA claims no

protectable interest relating to the subject matter of this action. Fed R. Civ. P. 19(b).

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (doc. # 16) is

denied as to the defenses of improper venue and failure to join an indispensable party. 

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 21 Filed 11/21/08 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 -

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs file by December 5, 2008, a response to

the remaining portions of the Motion. Defendants may file a reply by December 12, 2008,

at 5:00 p.m. The Motion is set for oral argument on December 15, 2008, at 4:00 p.m.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants file an Answer to the Amended

Complaint by December 12, 2008. 

DATED this 21st day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 21 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 3