luvthe9
Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Messages
- 9,464
- Reaction score
- 14,119
Yes, they had hoped to be finished with A330 IOE just before their Christmas vacation.
Heard the news! Where are they? It is like roaches when the lights go on.
August 2013 Pilot Discussion
- Thread starter Falcon
- Start date
- Status
Heard the news! Where are they? It is like roaches when the lights go on.
Metroyet
Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2008
- Messages
- 2,571
- Reaction score
- 5,664
God damn you're stupid. A scheduling conflict is a victory for USAPA.? LOL! I guess I missed USAPAs request for the reschedule...because there was none. You still won't have an LUP IN OCTOBER...3/12 WEEKS later.
Scabs are getting desperate for some good news...THIS ISN'T IT. HA!!!
Leonidas Update August 18, 2013
On Thursday, August 15th, a status conference was held before Judge Silver per her August 6th order (Doc 141). The parties had requested the hearing as part of their proposed Scheduling Order (Doc 132-1). Our attorneys have been busily preparing for the September 24th – 25th trial, and they anticipated that the conference would be very helpful in resolving a number of disagreements with USAPA counsel. Fortunately, much was resolved from the status conference because Judge Silver issued an order (Doc 160) yesterday, which is exactly what we had hoped for. USAPA counsel desperately tried to turn the status conference into an impromptu motion to dismiss hearing, arguing that the DOJ anti-trust suit was a changed circumstance that divested Judge Silver of her jurisdiction over the case. West attorneys rebutted those arguments, as did US Airways counsel. The complete transcript can be found here, and we highly recommend reading them because the dialogue is informative as to the real issue of our case.
We have a busy schedule ahead as we press on towards our September 24th date with justice. This has been an incredibly long road to get to where we are, and it never would have happened had it not been for the thousand-plus pilots who have each contributed thousands of dollars individually to this legal effort. Now we are on the final push. We have set up a special website called “The Push For Justice” and its purpose is to meet our funding requirement for the trial and post-trial phases. We ask that each captain subscribe for $100 a month and each first officer $50 a month, until the Nicolau is implemented. Fellow pilots, this is it: fund now or forever hold your peace.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Click here to Contribute
On Thursday, August 15th, a status conference was held before Judge Silver per her August 6th order (Doc 141). The parties had requested the hearing as part of their proposed Scheduling Order (Doc 132-1). Our attorneys have been busily preparing for the September 24th – 25th trial, and they anticipated that the conference would be very helpful in resolving a number of disagreements with USAPA counsel. Fortunately, much was resolved from the status conference because Judge Silver issued an order (Doc 160) yesterday, which is exactly what we had hoped for. USAPA counsel desperately tried to turn the status conference into an impromptu motion to dismiss hearing, arguing that the DOJ anti-trust suit was a changed circumstance that divested Judge Silver of her jurisdiction over the case. West attorneys rebutted those arguments, as did US Airways counsel. The complete transcript can be found here, and we highly recommend reading them because the dialogue is informative as to the real issue of our case.
We have a busy schedule ahead as we press on towards our September 24th date with justice. This has been an incredibly long road to get to where we are, and it never would have happened had it not been for the thousand-plus pilots who have each contributed thousands of dollars individually to this legal effort. Now we are on the final push. We have set up a special website called “The Push For Justice” and its purpose is to meet our funding requirement for the trial and post-trial phases. We ask that each captain subscribe for $100 a month and each first officer $50 a month, until the Nicolau is implemented. Fellow pilots, this is it: fund now or forever hold your peace.
Sincerely,
Leonidas, LLC
Click here to Contribute
And even the self-generated T-shirts to "prove" it, and yes; we're also aware of your equally being self-styled "spartans", and even "knights" who've "fought with valor" in "many battles".. 😉
Based on your posting history...probably not.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
Frankly I agree that a mere schedule change is not necessarily a huge win.... and IMHO a guilty verdict would not be a win either, if the judge implicitly assumes the defendant is guilty unless they prove their innocence via an LUP.
Since you are reliant on the so called LUP strategy, do you honestly have no reservation about disregarding the SCOTUS DFR standard quoted by the 9th? If Judge Silver never requires the plaintiff to prove USAPA acted outside of a "Wide range of reasonableness", but instead implicitly assumes USAPA is guilty unless they prove otherwise... Well are you comfortable with that? (No need to answer, that was rhetorical.
) Attorneys for US Airline Pilots Association
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
US Airline Pilots Association, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
CERTIFICATION REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH
SCHEDULING ORDER AND
JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES CONCERNING
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to ¶¶F and J of the Scheduling Order dated August 16, 2013 (Doc. 160),
and LR Civ. 7.2(j), the undersigned counsel confirm that they consulted and made sincere
efforts to resolve all discovery issues.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 171 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 4
Defendant’s Statement: Defendant’s Request for Production and Interrogatories
sought discovery pertaining to Claim III, a claim for damages comprised of attorneys’
fees (including for prior litigations), which is distinct from an award of fees to a
prevailing party. At Plaintiffs’ request, the Court consolidated the preliminary injunction
hearing with trial on the merits. Plaintiffs are refusing to produce records or answer
interrogatories relating to Claim III. These requests do not seek privileged information. In
re Osterhoudt, 722 F.2d 591, 593 (9th Cir. 1983). This information also pertains to
whether named plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives. Defendants are prejudiced
both with respect to effective depositions of Plaintiffs’ witnesses scheduled for the week
of August 26-29, 2013 and with respect to the trial on the merits. Defendant is also
prejudiced to the extent that Plaintiffs are belatedly requesting bifurcated discovery.
Defendant will be compelled to undertake duplicate discovery (including duplicative
document, written discovery and depositions) if discovery is bifurcated. Plaintiffs should
be compelled to comply with the demands.
Plaintiffs’ Statement:
Plaintiffs do not make a “stand alone” claim for fees as an element of damages.
See Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir.
2005) (“A ‘stand-alone’ claim for attorneys fees is one that can be brought as an
independent claim. . . .&rdquo😉. But out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs provided notice
in their pleadings that they would be seeking a fee award as prevailing party pursuant to
the common benefit doctrine. Such a “claim” for fees is made by motion to be filed no
later than 14 days after the entry of judgment for Plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(2)(A)
& ( B). Until Plaintiffs file that motion they have not waived the right to keep the status of
their litigation expenses confidential. Osterhoudt does not apply because it addressed
discovery of fees paid outside of an ongoing civil litigation. Finally, neither the Court in
Addington I nor this Court in Addington II doubted that Plaintiffs were adequate
representatives. USAPA fails to explain this discovery into Plaintiffs finances could
possibly show otherwise.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 171 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 4
1
2
3
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of August 2013.
Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.
By: s/ Susan Martin
Susan Martin
Jennifer L. Kroll
Martin & Bonnett
1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Patrick J. Szymanski (pro hac vice)
Patrick J. Szymanski, PLLC
1900 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Brian J. O’Dwyer (pro hac vice)
Gary Silverman (pro hac vice)
Joy K. Mele (pro hac vice)
O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP
52 Duane Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Attorneys for US Airline Pilots Association
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Don Addington, et. al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
US Airline Pilots Association, et. al.,
Defendants.
)
)
)
Case No.: CV-13-00471-PHX-ROS
CERTIFICATION REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH
SCHEDULING ORDER AND
JOINT STATEMENT
REGARDING DISCOVERY
DISPUTES CONCERNING
DEFENDANT’S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS’ REQUEST FOR
PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS
AND ANSWERS TO
INTERROGATORIES
Pursuant to ¶¶F and J of the Scheduling Order dated August 16, 2013 (Doc. 160),
and LR Civ. 7.2(j), the undersigned counsel confirm that they consulted and made sincere
efforts to resolve all discovery issues.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 171 Filed 08/23/13 Page 1 of 4
Defendant’s Statement: Defendant’s Request for Production and Interrogatories
sought discovery pertaining to Claim III, a claim for damages comprised of attorneys’
fees (including for prior litigations), which is distinct from an award of fees to a
prevailing party. At Plaintiffs’ request, the Court consolidated the preliminary injunction
hearing with trial on the merits. Plaintiffs are refusing to produce records or answer
interrogatories relating to Claim III. These requests do not seek privileged information. In
re Osterhoudt, 722 F.2d 591, 593 (9th Cir. 1983). This information also pertains to
whether named plaintiffs are appropriate class representatives. Defendants are prejudiced
both with respect to effective depositions of Plaintiffs’ witnesses scheduled for the week
of August 26-29, 2013 and with respect to the trial on the merits. Defendant is also
prejudiced to the extent that Plaintiffs are belatedly requesting bifurcated discovery.
Defendant will be compelled to undertake duplicate discovery (including duplicative
document, written discovery and depositions) if discovery is bifurcated. Plaintiffs should
be compelled to comply with the demands.
Plaintiffs’ Statement:
Plaintiffs do not make a “stand alone” claim for fees as an element of damages.
See Carolina Power & Light Co. v. Dynegy Mktg. & Trade, 415 F.3d 354, 360 (4th Cir.
2005) (“A ‘stand-alone’ claim for attorneys fees is one that can be brought as an
independent claim. . . .&rdquo😉. But out of an abundance of caution, Plaintiffs provided notice
in their pleadings that they would be seeking a fee award as prevailing party pursuant to
the common benefit doctrine. Such a “claim” for fees is made by motion to be filed no
later than 14 days after the entry of judgment for Plaintiffs. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54 (d)(2)(A)
& ( B). Until Plaintiffs file that motion they have not waived the right to keep the status of
their litigation expenses confidential. Osterhoudt does not apply because it addressed
discovery of fees paid outside of an ongoing civil litigation. Finally, neither the Court in
Addington I nor this Court in Addington II doubted that Plaintiffs were adequate
representatives. USAPA fails to explain this discovery into Plaintiffs finances could
possibly show otherwise.
Case 2:13-cv-00471-ROS Document 171 Filed 08/23/13 Page 2 of 4
1
2
3
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of August 2013.
Martin & Bonnett, P.L.L.C.
By: s/ Susan Martin
Susan Martin
Jennifer L. Kroll
Martin & Bonnett
1850 N. Central Ave., Suite 2010
Phoenix, AZ 85004
Patrick J. Szymanski (pro hac vice)
Patrick J. Szymanski, PLLC
1900 L Street, NW, Suite 900
Washington, DC 20036
Brian J. O’Dwyer (pro hac vice)
Gary Silverman (pro hac vice)
Joy K. Mele (pro hac vice)
O'Dwyer & Bernstien, LLP
52 Duane Street, 5th Floor
New York, NY 10007
Attorneys for US Airline Pilots Association
Whats a "writ of mandingo" is that something from AZ or blazing saddles? SYIT9th! MM!
Good question, especially since what's yet been seen from this court's unquestionably "authentic frontier gibberish!" 🙂
west pilots "Hey, I have a good idea, let's teach our minor children to hate a group of people they do not even know. Now that is good parenting. We will make them act in a video under pain of a unquestionably ripe no allowance threat."
I'd had the clearly mistaken belief that the USA wasn't using the Napoleonic Code, wherein the defense must prove innocence, but rather the prosecution/plaintiff any assignable guilt.
Phoenix
Veteran
- Joined
- Apr 16, 2003
- Messages
- 8,584
- Reaction score
- 7,430
WTF. See Carolina.... Hows about we see the freaking claim the plaintiff actually made to THIS court? Yes, upon reading plaintiff's Claim 3 (doc 134) it is indeed a stand alone claim, just like USAPA said it is. Its obvious, and Marty is wasting his time quibbling about it trying to avoid discovery about claim 3.
What does the plaintiff have to hide in this matter? And what happens if the plaintiff refuses to provide discovery? Hmmm.... is this latest delay in the trial happening because the plaintiff refuses to follow the rules of discovery??? 🙂
Time to que the "chimney pull challenge" video again!
- Status
