Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Writ of Mandamus at 9th

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
It means another attempt at delay courtesy of the most ridiculously fake labor union in history. Best of luck at the 9th.
 
Real parties in interest Don Addington, John Bostic, Mark Burman, AfshinIranpour, Roger Velez, Steve Wargocki, Michael J. Soha; Rodney Albert Brackin;and George Maliga, oppose the motion for stay of district court proceedings filed byUS Airline Pilots Association (“USAPA”).

Quite simply, USAPA is making a vain effort to impede the efforts ofPlaintiffs Addington, et al. from obtaining a judicial ruling that USAPA is illegallyevading its duty to implement a five-year old arbitrated seniority list that all hadagreed would be final and binding. USAPA knows it has no legitimate reason forits actions. Rather, it is acting solely to satisfy the demands of an oppressivemajority.

In this latest effort to delay justice, USAPA moved for an “emergency” orderto stay the District Court proceedings. USAPA did so on the eve of when itsofficers will have to explain their actions at deposition. If USAPA was sincere inits desire to conserve costs, it would not have delayed its motion, as it did, untilafter it subjected the class representatives to fifteen depositions that had little to nobearing on the merits of the claims. The timing of USAPA’s motion, therefore, istelling.
 
The East guys disregarded a binding award that they agreed to abide by beforehand. It's just that simple.


Bye Bye---General Lee
 
Real parties in interest Don Addington, John Bostic, Mark Burman, AfshinIranpour, Roger Velez, Steve Wargocki, Michael J. Soha; Rodney Albert Brackin;and George Maliga, oppose the motion for stay of district court proceedings filed byUS Airline Pilots Association (?USAPA?).

Quite simply, USAPA is making a vain effort to impede the efforts ofPlaintiffs Addington, et al. from obtaining a judicial ruling that USAPA is illegallyevading its duty to implement a five-year old arbitrated seniority list that all hadagreed would be final and binding. USAPA knows it has no legitimate reason forits actions. Rather, it is acting solely to satisfy the demands of an oppressivemajority.

In this latest effort to delay justice, USAPA moved for an ?emergency? orderto stay the District Court proceedings. USAPA did so on the eve of when itsofficers will have to explain their actions at deposition. If USAPA was sincere inits desire to conserve costs, it would not have delayed its motion, as it did, untilafter it subjected the class representatives to fifteen depositions that had little to nobearing on the merits of the claims. The timing of USAPA?s motion, therefore, istelling.

Judge Silver has no more jurisdiction for her trial she scheduled for October than did Judge Wake when he disregarded the law.
 
Judge Silver has no more jurisdiction for her trial she scheduled for October than did Judge Wake when he disregarded the law.

Ok, so IF, the ninth were to throw the case out ( which they won't ) you do realize someday USAPA will have to go to court again on the merits ? And they will need a LUP. In the mean time more Loa 93 for you.
 
Ooops...Usapa first failed to go to Silver's court with their request and court jumping is a big no-no. One day USAPA will have to stop their delay tactics and address the LUP issue and "it is not fair" will not cut it...
 
Ok, so IF, the ninth were to throw the case out ( which they won't ) you do realize someday USAPA will have to go to court again on the merits ? And they will need a LUP. In the mean time more Loa 93 for you.

USAPA isn't the plaintiff. The plaintiff will have to have evidence of a JCBA result outside a wide range of reasonableness.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top