12

- 2200

- cv

Naugler v. Air Line Pilot s Ass’n

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT.

CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FI LED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007 IS

PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE

PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT ’ S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A

SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY

MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC

DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING

TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT

REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for th e Second Circuit, held at 1

the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New 2

York, on the 29 th d ay of April

, two thousand thirteen. 3

4

PRESENT: RAYMOND J. LOHIER, J R., 5

SUSAN L. CARNEY

, 6

Circuit Judges

, 7

J. PAUL OETKEN

, 8

District Judge. * 9

_____________________________________ 10

11

DEREK ALEN et al

. , 12

13

Plaintiffs

, 14

15

SETH NAUGLER et al

. , 16

17

Plaintiffs

- Appell ants

, 18

19

v. 12

- 2 200

- cv 20

21

US AIRWAYS

, INC. et al

., 22

23

Defendants

, 24

25

AIR LINE PILOTS ASSO CIATION, 26

* The Honorable J. Paul Oetken , of the United States District Court for the Southern

District of New York, sitting by designation.2

INTERNATIONAL

, DUANE E. WOERTH, as 1

President of Air Line Pilots Association, 2

International

, 3

4

Defendant s

- Appellees

. ** 5

_____________________________________ 6

7

FOR APPELLANT S : M ICHAEL S. H ABER

, Law Office of 8

Michael S. Haber, New York, NY. 9

10

FOR APPELLEE S : M ICHAEL E. A BRAM (Joshua J. Ellison, 11

Cohen, Weiss and Simon LLP, New 12

York, NY and Clay Warner, Air Line 13

Pilots Association, International, 14

Herndon, VA, on the brief ), Cohen, 15

Weiss and Simon LLP, New York, NY. 16

17

Appeal from a judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District 18

of New York ( Nina Gershon

, Judge ). 19

UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, 20

AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court is AFFIRMED

. 21

Plaintiffs

- a ppellants appe al from a judgment of the District Court entered April 1 2

, 22

2012

, granting summary judgment to defendants

- appellees

. Plaintiffs

- appellants argue o n 23

appeal that the District Court erred by granting summary judgment because genuine 24

disputes of material fact exist with regard to whether defendant Air Line Pilots 25

Association, International (“ALPA”) breached its duty of fair representation to 26

plaintiffs

- appellants

. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the facts and record of the 27

prior proceedings, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision to affirm

. 28

“We review an order granting summary judgment de novo , drawing all factual 29

** This Order relates to the appellants as listed in the notice of appeal.3

inferences in favor of the non

- moving party.” Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc. , 676 1

F.3d 19, 30 (2d Cir. 2012). Summary judgment is required if “there is no genuine dispute 2

as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. 3

Civ. P. 56(a). We also review de novo the District Court’s conclusion that the case i s ripe 4

for revi ew. Connecticut v. Duncan , 612 F.3d 107, 112 (2d Cir. 2010)

. 5

I. Ripeness 6

Appellees argue that th is case is not ripe because the arbitration award has not yet 7

been, and may never be, implemented through the ratification of a collective bargaining 8

agreement

. The District Court appears to have concluded that the case was ripe because 9

the statute of limitations had started to run. The District Court was correct that the case i s 10

ripe, but not neces sarily because the statute of limitations had started to run. Appellants’ 11

claim ripened when ALPA took the position during the arbitration that M idAtlantic 12

Airways pilots had not been recalled to the mainline, and in so doing, is alleged to have 13

acted aga inst appellants’ interests. See Ramey v. Dist. 141, Int’l Ass’n of Machinists & 14

Aerospace Workers , 378 F.3d 269, 278 (2d Cir. 2004)

. The outcome of the final 15

negotiations in this case is irrelevant. At the time suit was filed ALPA’s involvement in 16

the negotiations wa s complete, its position and strategy w ere clear, and it no longer ha d the 17

ability to remedy the alleged harm inflicted on a ppellants. The duty of fair representation 18

issue at the heart of this litigation is therefore “purely legal,” and it would not benefit f rom 19

further factual development. Thomas v. Union Carbide Agric. Prods. Co. , 473 U.S. 568, 20

581 (1985)

. 214

II. Duty of Fair Representation 1

Having determined that the issue of the appellees ’ alleged breach of the duty of fair 2

representation is ripe for our review, we now turn to the merits. A union breaches its duty 3

to fairly represent its members if its conduct is “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith,” 4

and if there is “ a causal connection between the unio n’s wrongful conduct and their 5

injuries. ” Vaughn v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l , 604 F.3d 703, 709 (2d Cir. 2010) 6

(quotation marks omitted). A court’s examination of a union’s representation “must be 7

highly deferential, recognizing the wide latitude tha t negotiators need for the effective 8

performance of their bargaining responsibilities.” Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill

, 9

499 U.S. 65, 78 ( 1991). 10

The District Court correctly concluded that ALPA did not breach its duty of fair 11

representation to its members. Construing all facts in the light most favorable to 12

a ppellants, the record is devoid of evidence that ALPA’s conduct was arbitrary, 13

discriminatory, or taken in bad faith. Accordingly, we need not reach the causation issue

. 14

We have considered a ppellant s ’ remaining arguments and conclude that they are 15

without merit. For the foregoing reasons, the j udgment of the District Court is 16

AFFIRMED. 17

FOR THE COURT: 18

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk 19

20