RR,
The relevant factor is that 3 firms, and particularly the ALPA lawyers were assuming you would have all the parties to the arbitration to negotiate a different solution.
Also, that within bounds of DFR is where all the friction lies. I would venture to say that all the law firms except SSM&P (aka..the union busters) would have told Bradford and Marshall, that their plan failed to pass the DFR litmus test. Oh, wait, one firm did, and it was pretty damaging evidence in Addington.
Further, you now have the warnings from 4 federal judges.
Here is the bottom line. The arbitration is not going away. The Nic is the only accepted system seniority list at LCC. Since the West is unwilling and unable to negotiate any compromise, usapa is completely powerless to even get a non-Nic ratified and lose their "unquestionably ripe DFR".
Seriously, I suggest you go ask any of the above listed attorneys to restate their position in the present context. All will tell you the exact same thing the 9th did. usapa is free to negotiate the contract, and the West is free to sue once the contract is ratified. How many will then tell you the West chances of winning a DFR for a non-Nic DOH contract are about 100%, being that AOL already has a jury verdict and a 9th circuit admonishment of usapa to reference, would be the telling factor of who wants to milk you for money while you lose that "unquestionably ripe DFR".
1.
The relevant factor is that 3 firms, and particularly the ALPA lawyers were assuming you would have all the parties to the arbitration to negotiate a different solution.
Oh, I didn't realize you were there when the not yet union was discussing this with attorneys.
2. [
i]The Nic is the only accepted system seniority list at LCC. Since the West is unwilling and unable to negotiate any compromise, usapa is completely powerless to even get a non-Nic ratified and lose their "unquestionably ripe DFR".
Concerning the "unquestionably ripe DFR" you people keep messing this up. Yes, the QUESTION "Does USAPA Date of Hire Seniority List violate the the DFR standard?" The Question will be ripe and suitable for adjudication once a Non Nic contract is in place. The problem is the ANSWER IS "We will have to have an entirely new trial to find out."
One more time, the ripness issue deals with the ability of the court to deal with the question. The answer is not yet known and the prior case will have no bearing.
Addington is disimissed:
It was dismissed by the 9th
It was dismissed by Judge Wake
It was not reviewed by the Supreme Court
The cross claim was dismissed by Judge Silver
The legal definition of dismissed is as follows:
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dismissal
Dismissal without Prejudice A plaintiff is not subsequently barred from suing the same defendant on the same cause of action when a court grants a dismissal Without Prejudice of his or her case. Such a dismissal operates to terminate the case. It is not, however, an ultimate disposition of the controversy on the merits, but rather it is usually based upon procedural errors that do not substantially harm the defendant's rights.
It effectively treats the matter as if the lawsuit had never been commenced, but it does not relieve a plaintiff of the duty of complying with the Statute of Limitations, the time limit within which his or her action must be commenced. A dismissal without prejudice is granted in response to a notice of dismissal, stipulations, or a court order.
OK, so why will USAPA win in a second trial? Because judge Wake made up his own definitions of Bad Faith conduct and didn't use that which is required by the Supreme Court. Google
"Substantial Evidence of Fraud, Deceitful Action or Dishonest Conduct", this pharase is taken directly from Humphrey v. Moore.
You will find that definiition produces over 2000 hits all related to the DFR context. If you don't meet that standard then you don't have DFR conduct. Wake got it wrong and he knows he got it wrong. The 9th never got that far because it was not ripe to begin with.
