On July 21st, the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against the MAA flight attendants. I wonder how much they owe their lawyer.
MAA flight attendants lose appeal
- Thread starter DCAflyer
- Start date
700, how could you forget the daily threads of MAA whine?
http://www.usaviation.com/forums/index.php...lantic&st=9
DCA, was this the thread that ended with the UMPA LUMPA King calling me something like a "clucking witch?"
What ever happened to Captain Portapotty and his new union? He was so full of poop and feathers....
Where did the legion of UMPA supporters go? As I recall they came from every airline, all over the world to support the Captain Portapotty and his visions of grandeur.
Not sure where you heard this rumor..but..so far there has not been a ruling yet..our lawyer would have contacted us if there was. And we dont owe him anything. Why would you even post a rumor like this?
- Thread Starter
- #6
You mean your attorney didn't tell you that more than two weeks ago, on July 21st, the opinion in the 2nd District appeal was filed with the Eastern District of the US District Court affirming Judge Gershon's ruling and dismissal of the flight attendants' case? That's amazing.
The pertinent part of the opinion reads as follows:
Appeal from the March 27, 2008 judgment of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (Nina Gershon, Judge).
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the judgment of the District Court be AFFIRMED.
It is available on the website at the US District Court. I would definitely look into this matter if I were still a plaintiff.
- Thread Starter
- #7
This was discussed extensively before and after the case was filed in February 2006. The MAA pilots and flight attendants filed separate law suits against ALPA and AFA, respectively, as well as US Airways and America West. The claims included Racketeering and breach of the unions' duties of fair representation. Both plaintiff groups used the same attorney.
In the case of the flight attendants, there was a lot of back-and-forth very early on. The initial group of FA's who had contact with the attorney basically dropped out and another group took over. There were reports of committee people not being able to get along with the committee chair and for a while there was a revolving door of committee members. There were also reports of the attorney buying expensive gifts for the committee chair and this did not set right with a number of FA's who were involved.
When the attorney first filed the lawsuit, there were a number of FA's named as plaintiffs who had not signed representation agreements with the attorney and who did not want to be involved in the lawsuit (some of them because they did not like or did not trust the committee chair) and some of those people wrote letters to the judge saying they didn't hire the attorney and didn't want to be involved. The judge called the attorney into court and ordered him to determine who was in and who was out, and he had to amend the law suit.
Later, the attorney dropped US Airways and America West from the law suit. There was some question as to whether he told the plaintiffs he was doing so.
There after, union attorneys brought a motion to dismiss based on statutes of limitations. The plaintiffs lost that and the attorney filed an appeal on behalf of those people who were cought up on their monthly payments.
Now, it seems, that the flight attendants lost their appeal but apparently were not told so by their attorney or the committee.
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
What's the docket number?
In 1:05-cv-04751-NG-VVP, the last entry is:
06/26/2009 85 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky: Discovery Status and Scheduling Conference held on 6/26/2009. The parties have not yet begun taking depositions and may therefore have trouble meeting the factual discovery deadline of September 30, 2009. See annexed minutes for details. (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
I found this entry interesting too:
ORDER: This Court denies as premature defts' request to make a motion for summary judgment and for a stay of discovery pending that motion. The parties are directed to agree on a briefing schedule for defts' proposed motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery, which will continue under the supervision of Mag Pohorelsky. The parties are reminded to adhere to Judge Gershon's individual motion practices in future submissions. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 3/12/2009. (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
In 1:05-cv-04751-NG-VVP, the last entry is:
06/26/2009 85 MINUTE ENTRY for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge Viktor V. Pohorelsky: Discovery Status and Scheduling Conference held on 6/26/2009. The parties have not yet begun taking depositions and may therefore have trouble meeting the factual discovery deadline of September 30, 2009. See annexed minutes for details. (Newton, Joan) (Entered: 06/26/2009)
I found this entry interesting too:
ORDER: This Court denies as premature defts' request to make a motion for summary judgment and for a stay of discovery pending that motion. The parties are directed to agree on a briefing schedule for defts' proposed motion for summary judgment at the close of discovery, which will continue under the supervision of Mag Pohorelsky. The parties are reminded to adhere to Judge Gershon's individual motion practices in future submissions. Ordered by Senior Judge Nina Gershon on 3/12/2009. (Fernandez, Erica) (Entered: 03/17/2009)
DCA,
Thank you once again for your timely and truthful posting. XOXO really owes you, me and all MAA flight attendants a huge apology. She has spread Portapotty's propaganda for almost four years. She and the committee have flat out lied to ALL flight attendants from MAA about the status of this lawsuit starting in October of 2005 and continuing now. For the last two weeks the rumor in CLT has been MAA won a huge settlement, when in fact the lawsuit was dismissed because Haber did not file in a timely manner.
Thank you once again for your timely and truthful posting. XOXO really owes you, me and all MAA flight attendants a huge apology. She has spread Portapotty's propaganda for almost four years. She and the committee have flat out lied to ALL flight attendants from MAA about the status of this lawsuit starting in October of 2005 and continuing now. For the last two weeks the rumor in CLT has been MAA won a huge settlement, when in fact the lawsuit was dismissed because Haber did not file in a timely manner.
USCREW
Veteran
US1YFARE
Veteran
- Mar 31, 2004
- 3,932
- 54
View attachment 8532Here is the order that the other poster referred to..
what is the significance of that other docket?
what is the significance of that other docket?
Piney,
The committee was informed that the statute of limitations would run out on December 28, 2005.
Haber and Portelle responded to this news by having the committee members that researched and reported this issue removed from the committee. (and starting a malicious rumor campaign against them on the MAA flight attendant website) Many of us feel that Haber and Portelle never really cared if this suit was heard, MAA flight attendants were more of a fundraiser for Habers extracurricular activities and Portelles imaginary fiefdom. Have you ever met a lawyer who couldn't calculate a final filing date? Haber missed this one by more than 60 days.
The committee was informed that the statute of limitations would run out on December 28, 2005.
Haber and Portelle responded to this news by having the committee members that researched and reported this issue removed from the committee. (and starting a malicious rumor campaign against them on the MAA flight attendant website) Many of us feel that Haber and Portelle never really cared if this suit was heard, MAA flight attendants were more of a fundraiser for Habers extracurricular activities and Portelles imaginary fiefdom. Have you ever met a lawyer who couldn't calculate a final filing date? Haber missed this one by more than 60 days.
