Mesa Wins

[pepaa]

Though they are not out of the woods yet, it appears US Express will continue to fly........

Mesa Air Group Wins Injunction in Dispute with Delta Air Lines
Thursday May 29, 1:33 pm ET


PHOENIX, May 29 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- Mesa Air Group Inc. (Nasdaq: MESA - News) today won a preliminary injunction in the Federal Court in Atlanta enjoining Delta Air Lines ("Delta") from terminating Freedom Air's ERJ-145 contract.


On March 28, 2008, Delta notified Mesa of its intent to terminate the Delta Connection Agreement among Delta, the Company, and Mesa's wholly owned subsidiary, Freedom Airlines Inc., alleging failure to maintain a specified completion rate with respect to its ERJ-145 Delta Connection flights during three months of the six-month period September 2007 through February 2008.

Commenting on today's Court ruling, Mesa Air Group Chairman and CEO, Jonathan Ornstein said, "We are pleased with the Court's ruling. We wish to reaffirm our commitment to provide the very best service to Delta Air Lines, our passengers and our people. We are hopeful this issue can be fully resolved soon."

Freedom Airlines currently operates 34 50-seat ERJ-145 and 7 76-seat CRJ-900 aircraft for Delta Connection.

 

[freedom]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooo!!!!

This company is evil and must be slain! nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[pepaa]

nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
o
oooooooooo!!!!

This company is evil and must be slain! nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

TOO FUNNY!

 

[Elevation]

preliminary injunction only

 

[jimntx]

Precisely. If it will make you feel better, think of it as a court-imposed stay of execution.

 

[hp_fa]

preliminary injunction only

To obtain a preliminary injunction it is normally required that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate the probability that it would win at trial.

 

[Elevation]

not a high bar by any means.

 

[hp_fa]

not a high bar by any means.

Actually, it is.

 

[cynic]

To obtain a preliminary injunction it is normally required that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate the probability that it would win at trial.

The fact that not granting the injunction would have caused irreparable harm to Mesa was most likely a major factor in the decision. Judges don't like the idea of a company going completely out of business while waiting for their case to be heard, especially when it isn't an obvious case. There is comparatively little penalty to Delta while this plays out in court.

 

[700UW]

Actually it is not, the IAM got an injuction from the courts when US outsourced the Airbus work, only to have the appeal court overturn it when US appealed.

 

[Ch. 12]

Actually it is not, the IAM got an injuction from the courts when US outsourced the Airbus work, only to have the appeal court overturn it when US appealed.

I agree. An injunction is nothing more than posting bail. It keeps the status quo until the final decision is handed down.

 

[luv2fly]

To obtain a preliminary injunction it is normally required that the party seeking the injunction must demonstrate the probability that it would win at trial.

Absolutely incorrect. It is only an order to maintain status quo.
Mesa's assertion was that if an injunction wasn't granted and then if Mesa finally won the trial, it wouldn't matter because they would already be out of business.
The injunction at this point really shouldn't be a suprise.

 

[FWAAA]

Absolutely incorrect. It is only an order to maintain status quo.
Mesa's assertion was that if an injunction wasn't granted and then if Mesa finally won the trial, it wouldn't matter because they would already be out of business.
The injunction at this point really shouldn't be a suprise.

Your legal analysis is sorely lacking. hp_fa is "absolutely incorrect?" Nope. You are. hp_fa is correct.

Preliminary injunction requires two things:

Potential for irreparable injury if it's not granted PLUS a likelihood the moving party will prevail on the merits. For confirmations, See Doran v. Salem Inn, 422 U.S. 922, 911, see also Fireman's Fund v. Leslie & Elliot, 867 F.2d 150.

 

[luv2fly]

Your legal analysis is sorely lacking. hp_fa is "absolutely incorrect?" Nope. You are. hp_fa is correct.

Preliminary injunction requires two things:

You are correct. I stand corrected. My apologies to Ms. hp_fa.
In addition, it appears that there are in fact four requirements.

1.That there is a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of the case,
2.That they face a substantial threat of irreparable damage or injury if the injunction is not granted,
3.That the balance of harms weighs in favor of the party seeking the preliminary injunction
4.That the grant of an injunction would not disserve the public interest.

Clearly it would have been easy for Mesa to meet the latter three requirments. The first being more subjective.

 

[USA320Pilot]

It is my understanding "a preliminary injunction is a provisional remedy granted to restrain activity on a temporary basis until the court can make a final decision after trial. It is usually necessary to prove the high likelihood of success upon the merits of one's case and a likelihood of irreparable harm in the absence of a preliminary injunction before such an injunction may be granted; otherwise the party may have to wait for trial to obtain a permanent injunction."

Regards,

USA320Pilot