Opinion ID: 185278
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Atlas Air's Cross-Appeal

Text: Atlas cross-appeals the district court's dismissal of itsadditional claim for a declaratory judgment that it retainedthe right to make additional unilateral changes to salary and working conditions prior to the ratification of a collectivebargaining agreement. There is no subject matter jurisdiction for this claim. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, a dispute must notbe nebulous or contingent but must have taken on fixed andfinal shape. Danville Tobacco Ass'n v. Freeman, 351 F.2d832, 833-34 (D.C. Cir. 1965) (quoting Public Service Comm'nv. Wycoff Co., 344 U.S. 237, 244 (1952)); see also FederalExpress Corp. v. ALPA, 67 F.3d 961 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (findingno concrete legal dispute in airline's suit for declaratoryjudgment that unopposed changes in status quo workingconditions were protected under the RLA). That a unionmay posture in labor negotiations or otherwise threaten torespond to future changes is insufficient to create the reasonable apprehension of litigation necessary for the claim to bejusticiable. See id. at 964-65. Thus the district court correctly dismissed Atlas's additional claims for lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction on the grounds that it must not speculateas to future unilateral changes Atlas may wish to make andwhether those changes would be lawful under the RLA. Atlas, 69 F. Supp. 2d at 164.