Leonidas Update March 10, 2012

on .

On Thursday, March 8, 2012 during a conference call with Judge Silver’s clerk, USAPA insisted on filing a reply brief. USAPA attorneys told the clerk (not Judge Silver) that they already had a brief written and insisted that they be allowed the right to file what the local rules of the district court automatically provide for.

This is the actual language from page 32 of the Arizona Court Local Rules of Civil Procedure:


"(d) Reply Memorandum. The moving party, unless otherwise ordered by the Court, shall have seven (7) days after service of the responsive memorandum to file a reply memorandum if that party so desires."


Judge Silver only set dates for the motion and the response briefs. It appeared she didn't want a reply, otherwise logic would dictate that she would have set a date for the reply brief as well. As per the local rule, all three parties have the right to file a reply “unless otherwise ordered by the court.”


Leonidas Update January 17, 2012

on .

Today, Judge Silver granted the company's request to extend the deadlines for the summary judgment motions. You can read the order here. The underlying reason for the company's request was a death in one of their attorney's family. As a matter of professional courtesy, West attorneys stipulated to the extension. The new schedule is for initial briefs to be filed on or before January 27th and responses to be filed on or before February 21st.

We have no further comment at this time about the extension.

Thank you for your continued support.

Leonidas, LLC


Leonidas Update January 08, 2012

on .

During the recent hearing in Judge Silver's courtroom, the parties involved in the Declaratory Judgment case argued to clarify the framework of the courts process to determine the company’s legal rights. By the end of the nearly hour-long hearing, Judge Silver envisioned an approach that would maximize judicial efficiency. As the company and West Class offered in their pre-hearing briefs, Judge Silver seeks to end the ineluctable controversy as a matter of law through Summary Judgment.

In the days following the December 1st proceeding, many conversations still struggle to grasp the subtleties involved in adjudicating this conflict to a final court resolution utilizing the Federal Declaratory Relief Act. To aid in filtering some of the noise, we will illuminate only the salient points of this litigation:

• The Declaratory Judgment is an action that allows the company to determine its legal rights and obligations regarding Section 22 - Seniority.

• Established law affords the company and union the right to negotiate all contracts, including the Transition Agreement, within the limits of law.

• The court will only allow a limited view of the factual history of this dispute to establish the company's liability in negotiating a potentially unlawful seniority position.

• “Declaratory Relief” is specifically designed for issues "not yet ripe for adjudication." Therefore, this case does not interfere with Ninth Circuit's decision on the ripeness of the union's DFR.



A Personal Message from Eric Ferguson, Ken Holmes, and John Scherff

on .

Dear Former America West Pilots,


We would like to express our sincere thanks to all of you for your unwavering support and encouragement over the last year. As you can imagine, this has been a difficult time for the three of us and our families while we have waited many months for the conclusion of the company's investigation. In some ways, a paid leave of absence could be seen as a windfall for the three of us. But, it is easy to see how little fun was actually had when one considers the severity of the false allegations of “Identity Theft” levied against us by USAPA and takes note of the union's efforts to destroy us. While it hasn't been all bad, it hasn't been all that great either.

We are proud of how our West brothers and sisters have remained strong while allowing the investigation run its course. From the moment this all began, we implored all of you to separate this investigation from everything else, especially from your primary job of flying airplanes safely and efficiently for US Airways. Your performance has been remarkable.


Leonidas Update December 03, 2011

on .

On Thursday, December 1st, The Honorable Chief Judge of the Federal District of Arizona, Judge Roslyn O. Silver, held a Scheduling Conference in The US Airways’ Complaint for Declaratory Relief (Doc 1) at the Sandra Day O’Connor Federal Court House in Phoenix, Arizona.

This was our second visit into Courtroom 604 as you may recall the first was the dismissal hearing on February 9, 2011. While the three parties are basically the same, there were some differences in both nature and physical appearance.

While we are all familiar with US Airways lead counsel Robert Siegel, it was the first appearance for the freshly minted West Class and the three new Class Representatives with Attorney Marty Harper at the helm along with the new law firm for USAPA led by Patrick Szymanski. While not a capacity gallery, there were many West pilots in attendance, and for a moment, we didn’t see any east pilots until we realized that they chose to attend incognito. We have an inquiry to our Phoenix Reps as to whether the union business uniform policy has been changed to street clothes without our knowledge or BPR consent.

Judge Silver began with a few housekeeping details denying USAPA’s objections to West Class Certification and granting the additional West Class Representatives. Thereafter, it was right to business as Judge Silver began whittling the pencil lead to a very sharp point by the end of the 59 minute hearing. Her focus was to create a manageable case to answer a simple question: Will Plaintiff US Airways be held liable to the Defendant West Class in the event they choose to negotiate a non-Nicolau seniority integration with Co-Defendant USAPA?