Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633/USCOURTS-azd-2_08-cv-01633-6/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

Previously, this Court expressed uncertainty regarding whether a hearing was

necessary to the disposition of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Class Certification (doc. # 120). An

order was issued directing counsel to file a joint pretrial statement respecting certification to

help the Court determine the possible value of such a hearing. (Doc. # 210.) The Court

issued this order before the certification briefing was complete. 

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 223 Filed 03/03/09 Page 1 of 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

- 2 -

Now that the briefing is complete, the Court doubts that any such hearing is necessary

and is inclined to vacate the order directing preparation for such a hearing (doc. # 210). Both

parties have had the opportunity to present evidence with their briefs, and it appears that no

hearing is necessary for a prompt ruling to be issued on the certification motion (doc. # 120).

A needless hearing would only divert time and resources from the merits of this case.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

The parties shall telephone chambers and schedule an immediate telephone conference

to discuss any objections to vacating the Court’s February 23, 2009 order (doc. # 210). This

conference will also address the parties’ Notice of Discovery Dispute filed today

(doc. # 222).

DATED this 3rd day of March, 2009.

Case 2:08-cv-01633-NVW Document 223 Filed 03/03/09 Page 2 of 2