Addington et al v. US Airline Pilots Association et al

Filing 220

ORDER denying Defendant USAPA's 217 Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification. See text of attached order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V Wake on 3/2/09.(SJF)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark) Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;) ) Steve Wargocki, ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) US Airline Pilots Association; US) ) Airways, Inc., ) ) Defendants. __________________________________) ) Don Addington; John Bostic; Mark) Burman; Afshin Iranpour; Roger Velez;) ) Steve Wargocki, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) vs. ) ) Steven Bradford; Paul Diorio; Robert) Frear; Mark King; Douglas Mowery; John) ) Stephan, et al., ) ) Defendants. ) ) No. CV 08-1633-PHX-NVW (consolidated) ORDER

CV08-1728-PHX-NVW

Before the Court is Defendant USAPA's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification (doc. # 217), which contends that the reply was filed late on February 27, 2009. The Court previously granted USAPA's contested motion for extension of time to file its response. (Doc. # 155.) USAPA now contends that because its extension was granted and the order said nothing about extending Plaintiffs' time for reply,

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Plaintiffs were required to file a reply in accordance with the original briefing schedule, as though USAPA had not been granted an extension on its response. This is a wholly unreasonable view of the extension order, which did not purport to override the terms of Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(d) and LRCiv 7.2(d), giving a moving party five days--plus three days for service other than personal delivery--to reply to a response brief. The Court's mistaken reference in passing in doc. # 210 to February 26 as the close of briefing, rather than the correct date of February 27, 2009, does not shorten Plaintiff's time. That subsequent order relating to the possibility of an evidentiary hearing grants no such relief (doc. # 210 at p. 2, lines 3-20). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant USAPA's Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Reply in Support of Their Motion for Class Certification (doc. # 217) is denied. DATED this 2nd day of March, 2009.

-2-