MR. SZYMANSKI: At this point. At this point, Your Honor, it is. At this point it is. I don't think that the Court has even Article III jurisdiction at this point, given this lawsuit, because without --
THE COURT: Wait a minute. Why don't I have jurisdiction? That's a very important issue, and I -- I don't understand what you're saying.
MR. SZYMANSKI: Your Honor, there is no injury to the plaintiffs unless the merger goes forward.
THE COURT: Well, I disagree with you on that. If that's your position as to why or why not there is jurisdiction, then I -- I disagree with you. Whether or not there's injury is a decision to be made after the case is presented and the defense is presented. That doesn't have to do -- or has anything to do whether this Court has Article III jurisdiction of this matter before it.
MR. SZYMANSKI: But Your Honor, the claim is that we're going to be going to a seniority integration proceeding without using the Nicolau Award. And unless there is a merger, there is no seniority integration proceeding; there is no memorandum of understanding --
THE COURT: So you're not talking about jurisdiction, you're talking about moot, right? Talking about jurisprudential jurisdiction of some sort, is that it?
MR. SZYMANSKI: Injury in fact, Your Honor. I'm talking about injuries in fact. There is no injury in fact unless --
THE COURT: Well, there's no --
MR. SZYMANSKI: -- there is a seniority integration
-- THE COURT: I'm sorry to interrupt you, but there's no
injury in fact, the question is then today if there's injury in fact. If I held a -- a trial based upon what we had before, starting September 24th, assuming that this merger was going to go forward, I would decide whether or not there was injury.