Opinion ID: 308204
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: District Court's Revised Order

Text: 17 Despite our agreement with the district court indicated above, there remains one portion of its order that we feel compelled to modify. 18 In its original order, the district court enjoined the appellees from processing a grievance collateral to that of appellant's here. 4 That grievance had resulted in a separate petition to the district court on a request similar to that pending in the instant case. The initial order of the district court enjoined the processing of that grievance until it had reached a final judgment on the issue whether the grievance was properly before the System Board of Adjustment. The district court subsequently modified its order to read, with respect to the related grievance: 19 That any proceedings in connection with the processing of a certain grievance set forth in Exhibit 'H' of the moving papers are stayed, until such time as the judge who is assigned the case passes on it. 20 The clear import of the order is that the judge who is assigned the case will be given both the Grandfathers' and the collateral petition. That assumption is quite possibly erroneous, the result of which would be to place in some confusion the date on which the stay of the processing of the collateral grievance will expire. We therefore modify the district court's order of July 18, 1972 to conform to its order of June 22, 1972. 21 The order of the district court is affirmed in all respects, except for that portion regarding the stay of a certain related grievance, as to which it is modified to conform to the original order of June 22, 1972. 22 Since we are informed that this case has now been assigned to a single judge for all purposes, we suggest the earliest practicable trial on the merits. 23 Order modified and affirmed.