Guppiedriver
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Posts
- 544
III. THIS DISPUTE IS RIPE
American agrees with the arguments made by US Airways with respect to the ripeness
issue. It writes separately here merely to emphasize the unique harm that will be done to
American should there be any delay in considering the merits of that dispute. ?A court ?appl[ies]
a two-part test to determine if a case satisfies prudential requirements for ripeness: the fitness of
the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.?
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 486 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 132
S. Ct. 366 (2011). A question is fit for decision when it can be decided without considering
?contingent future events that may or may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
all.? Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 57 Filed 05/07/13
-
?At the same time, a litigant need not ?await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain
preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough.?? Id. (quoting 18 Unnamed
?John Smith? Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989)).To meet the hardship
requirement, meanwhile, ?a litigant must show that withholding review would result in ?direct
and immediate? hardship and would entail more than possible financial loss.? Winter v. Cal. Med.
Review Bd., Inc., 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Cal. Dep?t of Educ. v. Bennett, 833
F.2d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 1987)).
It is difficult to imagine a labor case in which impending injury would be more certain, or
in which the direct and immediate hardship that would result from waiting is more patent.
American is about to embark on a merger valued at approximately $10 billion. As with most
mergers, the value in the merger is bound up in the ability to achieve efficiencies from combining
operations as soon as possible; the longer the merged company is required to operate separately
one ?American? pilot workforce and a second ?US Airways? pilot workforce, the more the value
of the merger for shareholders will be degraded. The competitive capacity of the merged airline
? and thus the livelihood of the tens of thousands of individuals the airline will employ ? will
turn on the airline?s ability to capitalize quickly on the opportunities the merger presents. Delay
means diminished opportunities.
It was precisely for that reason that US Airways, American and their respective pilot
unions negotiated a detailed, comprehensive pre-merger collective bargaining agreement, with
meticulous attention to deadlines, to ensure that the labor components of the merger could be
effectuated as soon as possible. USAPA, however, continues to delay the process of resolving the
internal US Airways pilot seniority integration dispute (a resolution that obviously would
facilitate the process of merging the American and US Airways pilot seniority lists). It now
claims, not only that this dispute is not currently ripe, but that it will not becomeripe for years ?
until the operational integration of the airlines is otherwise completed and the parties have
finished the JCBA process.
That is not tenable. The bankruptcy court has approved the merger. The Plan of
Reorganization, which incorporates the MOU, has been filed and is awaiting approval by the
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 57 Filed 05/07/13
bankruptcy court. The risk of harm to Americanis imminent. USAPA has contractually agreed
to begin the merger-related seniority integration process ?as soon as possible after? the Plan is
approved and American emerges from Chapter 11 ? a date scheduled to arrive early in the third
quarter. This potential injury to American?s contract rights is not remote or insubstantial; it is
here and now.
To the extent it applies here, ripeness is a prudential doctrine, not a jurisdictional rule. See
Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass?n, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the current state of
affairs, it would be unwarranted and imprudent in the extreme to use that doctrine to deny the
merging parties the benefit of their bargain and frustrate American?s efforts to realize the
advantages expected by the new company?s shareholders and employees alike.
American agrees with the arguments made by US Airways with respect to the ripeness
issue. It writes separately here merely to emphasize the unique harm that will be done to
American should there be any delay in considering the merits of that dispute. ?A court ?appl[ies]
a two-part test to determine if a case satisfies prudential requirements for ripeness: the fitness of
the issue for judicial decision and the hardship to the parties of withholding court consideration.?
Western Watersheds Project v. Kraayenbrink, 632 F.3d 472, 486 (9th Cir.), cert denied, 132
S. Ct. 366 (2011). A question is fit for decision when it can be decided without considering
?contingent future events that may or may not occur as anticipated, or indeed may not occur at
all.? Cardenas v. Anzai, 311 F.3d 929, 934 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 57 Filed 05/07/13
-
?At the same time, a litigant need not ?await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain
preventive relief. If the injury is certainly impending, that is enough.?? Id. (quoting 18 Unnamed
?John Smith? Prisoners v. Meese, 871 F.2d 881, 883 (9th Cir. 1989)).To meet the hardship
requirement, meanwhile, ?a litigant must show that withholding review would result in ?direct
and immediate? hardship and would entail more than possible financial loss.? Winter v. Cal. Med.
Review Bd., Inc., 900 F.2d 1322, 1325 (9th Cir. 1990) (citing Cal. Dep?t of Educ. v. Bennett, 833
F.2d 827, 833-34 (9th Cir. 1987)).
It is difficult to imagine a labor case in which impending injury would be more certain, or
in which the direct and immediate hardship that would result from waiting is more patent.
American is about to embark on a merger valued at approximately $10 billion. As with most
mergers, the value in the merger is bound up in the ability to achieve efficiencies from combining
operations as soon as possible; the longer the merged company is required to operate separately
one ?American? pilot workforce and a second ?US Airways? pilot workforce, the more the value
of the merger for shareholders will be degraded. The competitive capacity of the merged airline
? and thus the livelihood of the tens of thousands of individuals the airline will employ ? will
turn on the airline?s ability to capitalize quickly on the opportunities the merger presents. Delay
means diminished opportunities.
It was precisely for that reason that US Airways, American and their respective pilot
unions negotiated a detailed, comprehensive pre-merger collective bargaining agreement, with
meticulous attention to deadlines, to ensure that the labor components of the merger could be
effectuated as soon as possible. USAPA, however, continues to delay the process of resolving the
internal US Airways pilot seniority integration dispute (a resolution that obviously would
facilitate the process of merging the American and US Airways pilot seniority lists). It now
claims, not only that this dispute is not currently ripe, but that it will not becomeripe for years ?
until the operational integration of the airlines is otherwise completed and the parties have
finished the JCBA process.
That is not tenable. The bankruptcy court has approved the merger. The Plan of
Reorganization, which incorporates the MOU, has been filed and is awaiting approval by the
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 57 Filed 05/07/13
bankruptcy court. The risk of harm to Americanis imminent. USAPA has contractually agreed
to begin the merger-related seniority integration process ?as soon as possible after? the Plan is
approved and American emerges from Chapter 11 ? a date scheduled to arrive early in the third
quarter. This potential injury to American?s contract rights is not remote or insubstantial; it is
here and now.
To the extent it applies here, ripeness is a prudential doctrine, not a jurisdictional rule. See
Addington v. U.S. Airline Pilots Ass?n, 606 F.3d 1174 (9th Cir. 2010). Given the current state of
affairs, it would be unwarranted and imprudent in the extreme to use that doctrine to deny the
merging parties the benefit of their bargain and frustrate American?s efforts to realize the
advantages expected by the new company?s shareholders and employees alike.
