Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01728/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01728-0/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 (the “West Pilots”) filed this class action in the Arizona Superior Court,

Maricopa County, against a defendant class of other pilots (the “East Pilots”), claiming that

the East Pilots, acting through their collective bargaining representatives, breached express

and implied contracts. The court has already detailed the transactional history giving rise to

these allegations in a related case. See Order, Addington v. US Airways, No. CV-08-1633-

PHX-NVW (Nov. 20, 2008) (Doc. # 84). Defendants removed this action to this court, and

Plaintiffs have moved to remand to state court. (Doc. # 9). The Motion to Remand will be

denied. 

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 20 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 -

Removal was proper in this case because the West Pilots’ state court complaint could

have been filed in federal court. Caterpiller Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386, 392 (1987).

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged a breach of the Transition Agreement, which modifies the

collective bargaining rights of the parties. This suit alleging that unions and their members

breached this agreement depends upon interpretation of the Agreement and implicitly falls

within the fair representation provisions of the Railway Labor Act. 45 U.S.C. §§ 151–152.

It is thus preempted, and jurisdiction is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1441. Hawaiian Airlines,

Inc. v. Norris, 512 U.S. 246, 261 (1994) (“[W]here the resolution of a state-law claim

depends on an interpretation of the [collective bargaining agreement], the claim is

pre-empted.”); cf. Harper v. San Diego Transit Corp., 764 F.2d 663, 666-67 (9th Cir. 1985)

(duty of fair representation preempts state law claims).

It is not necessary to consider now, and it is not here decided, whether the West Pilots’

Amended Complaint (Doc. # 8), which attempts to strip out all federal claims, is federally

preempted so as to arise under federal law. Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 depends

solely on the complaint filed in state court, irrespective of post-removal amendments.

Williams v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 471 F.3d 975, 976 (9th Cir. 2006). If the amended

complaint raises claims that are not preempted, this court exercises its discretion to retain

jurisdiction under the factors listed in 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c). The issues and the parties in this

case fall squarely within the case or controversy of Addington v. US Airways, and judicial

economy favors resolution of both cases together. Indeed, it appears difficult or even

impossible to decide Addington v. US Airways without resolving the substantive issues posed

by this case. If this case did arise only under state law such that it could be remanded, it still

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 20 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 -

would be an entire waste of state judicial resources to laden another judge with the burden

this court is carrying and will carry in Addington v. US Airways. Viewing the two cases

together and assuming this case now raises only state law claims, those claims do not

“predominate[] over the claim or claims over which the district court has original

jurisdiction” in Addington v. US Airways. Moreover, there are no other “compelling reasons

for declining” jurisdiction. Id. § 1367(c)(2), (4). At this time, the court will defer the

question whether to formally consolidate this case with Addington v. U.S. Airways or to

adjudicate them simultaneously and in tandem.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion to Remand (doc. # 9) is

denied.

DATED this 21st day of November, 2008.

Case 2:08-cv-01728-NVW Document 20 Filed 11/21/08 Page 3 of 3