Allegiant Air, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division et al

Filing 12

ORDER granting 10 Motion for TRO. Plaintiff shall post a nominal bond of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) because the evidence indicates that Defendants will suffer only minimal, if any, damage by the issuance of this temporary restrainin g order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer Case No. 2:15-cv-00580-GMN-PAL, Allegiant Air, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division et al., to the Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States Dis trict Judge, and the Honorable George W. Foley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, and all future pleadings shall bear the following Case No.: 2:15-cv-00580-APG-GWF. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until Monday, April 6, 20 15, to file their Response Brief to Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction 11 . Thereafter, Plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, April 8, 2015, to file their Reply Brief. The matter shall be set for hearing on Plaintiffs Motion for Prelimin ary Injunction on Friday, April 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6C before the Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge. Signed by Chief Judge Gloria M. Navarro on 4/1/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 ALLEGIANT AIR, LLC, 4 Plaintiff, 5 vs. 6 7 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, AIRLINE DIVISION, et al., 8 Defendants. 9 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 2:15-cv-00580-GMN-PAL ORDER Pending before the Court is the Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (ECF No. 10) 10 11 filed by Plaintiff Allegiant Air, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Allegiant”). Also pending before the 12 Court is the Notice of Related Cases filed by Defendants on March 31, 2015 in Case No. 2:15- 13 cv-00580-GMN-PAL (ECF No. 9), and Case No. 2:14-cv-00043-APG-GWF (ECF No. 136). 14 I. 15 BACKGROUND Allegiant alleges violation of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. §§ 151 et seq., (“RLA”). 16 (Compl., ECF No. 1). Allegiant alleges that Defendant International Brotherhood of 17 Teamsters, Airline Division (“IBT”) was certified by the National Mediation Board (“NMB”) 18 as the collective bargaining representative of Allegiant’s pilots on August 24, 2012, and the 19 parties began direct negotiations towards a collective bargaining agreement in December 2012. 20 (Id. ¶ 22). “Since April 2014, the parties have been in mediated negotiations under the auspices 21 of the NMB.” (Id. ¶ 23). The parties participated in six mediated negotiation sessions between 22 April and November 2014, and additional sessions scheduled to be held in December 2014 and 23 January 2015 were canceled by the NMB due to federal budgetary issues. (Id. ¶ 24). On 24 January 23, 2015, IBT requested that the NMB make a proffer of arbitration, cancelling 25 negotiation sessions scheduled for February and March 2015. (Id. ¶ 25). However, the NMB Page 1 of 7 1 informed the parties that it was neither granting nor denying IBT’s request, and scheduled 2 another negotiation session in April 2015. (Id. ¶ 27). On November 15, 2013, “IBT filed an action in the United Stated District Court for the 3 4 Southern District of Florida, alleging that Allegiant had unilaterally changed certain pilots 5 working conditions in violation of the status quo.” (Id. ¶ 32). The case was subsequently 6 transferred to this district (Case No. 2:14-cv-00043-APG-GWF). (Id. ¶ 33). On July 22, 2014, 7 Judge Andrew P. Gordon issued an order granting IBT’s preliminary injunction motion in part, 8 requiring that Allegiant “restore the status quo to the extent set forth in his order.” (Id. ¶ 38). 9 In January 2015, Allegiant alleges that IBT took a strike vote among the Allegiant pilots, 10 and the pilots authorized IBT to call a strike if necessary. (Id. ¶ 43). Moreover, Allegiant 11 alleges that IBT has developed a “Plan B” strategy, whereby, “whether the NMB released the 12 parties from mediation or not, it would strike to gain leverage with Allegiant at the bargaining 13 table.” (Id. ¶ 44). Allegiant also alleges that on April 1, 2015, it “learned that IBT has in fact 14 called a strike, through its text message system, to begin on the morning of April 2, 2015,” and 15 “[u]nless the strike is enjoined by early afternoon on April 1, 2015, Allegiant will have to alert 16 its passengers to the strike and let them know that their flights will be cancelled.” (Mot. for 17 TRO 12:24–12, ECF No. 11). 18 II. 19 LEGAL STANDARD Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs preliminary injunctions and 20 temporary restraining orders, and requires that a motion for temporary restraining order include 21 “specific facts in an affidavit or a verified complaint [that] clearly show that immediate and 22 irreparable injury, loss, or damage will result to the movant before the adverse party can be 23 heard in opposition,” as well as written certification from the movant’s attorney stating “any 24 efforts made to give notice and the reasons why it should not be required.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 25 65(b). However, “[t]he urgency of obtaining a preliminary injunction necessitates a prompt Page 2 of 7 1 determination and makes it difficult to obtain affidavits from persons who would be competent 2 to testify at trial.” Flynt Distrib. Co., Inc. v. Harvey, 734 F.2d 1389, 1394 (9th Cir. 1984) 3 (citing 11 C. Wright and A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, Civil, § 2949 at 471 4 (1973)). Thus, “[t]he trial court may give even inadmissible evidence some weight, when to do 5 so serves the purpose of preventing irreparable harm before trial.” Id. 6 Temporary restraining orders are governed by the same standard applicable to 7 preliminary injunctions. See Cal. Indep. Sys. Operator Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Inc., 181 8 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1126 (E.D. Cal. 2001). Specifically, a preliminary injunction may be issued 9 if a plaintiff establishes: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of irreparable 10 harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in the plaintiff’s 11 favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 12 Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008). Alternatively, the Ninth Circuit has held that district courts may 13 issue an injunction if the first two elements are met and there are “serious questions going to 14 the merits” and there is “a hardship balance that tips sharply toward the plaintiff.” Alliance for 15 the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1132 (9th Cir. 2011). “Injunctive relief [is] an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear 16 17 showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Id. at 22. Above all, a temporary 18 restraining order “should be restricted to serving [its] underlying purpose of preserving the 19 status quo and preventing irreparable harm just so long as is necessary to hold a hearing, and no 20 longer.” Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Local No. 70, 21 415 U.S. 423, 439 (1974). 22 III. 23 DISCUSSION For the reasons discussed below, the Court concludes that Allegiant has established each 24 of the four elements of the TRO analysis. Accordingly, the Court finds that Allegiant is 25 entitled to an ex parte temporary restraining order that enjoins IBT and the other Defendants Page 3 of 7 1 from engaging in, encouraging, or calling an unlawful strike against Allegiant by its pilots in 2 violation of the Defendants' duties under the RLA. 3 A. 4 Before Allegiant is entitled to a TRO, it must first establish that they will likely succeed Likelihood of Success on the Merits 5 on the merits of a claim that would entitle the plaintiffs to the equitable remedy sought. See 6 Winter, 555 U.S. at 20. “It has been held many times under the Railway Labor Act that 7 economic action in support of bargaining demands prior to exhaustion of the Act's major 8 dispute procedures under Sections 5 and 6 is unlawful and enjoinable.” Consol. Rail Corp. v. 9 Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employees, 735 F. Supp. 1265, 1271 (E.D. Pa. 1990) (citing Consol. Rail 10 Corp. v. Ry. Labor Executives’ Ass’n, 491 U.S. 299, 302 (1989). However, Section 8 of the 11 Norris-LaGuardia Act (“NLGA”), 29 U.S.C. § 108, provides that “[n]o restraining order or 12 injunctive relief shall be granted to any complainant who has failed to comply with any 13 obligation imposed by law which is involved in the labor dispute in question, or who has failed 14 to make every reasonable effort to settle such dispute either by negotiation or with the aid of 15 any available governmental machinery of mediation or voluntary arbitration.” 16 Here, Allegiant asserts that the major dispute procedures of the RLA have not been 17 exhausted and therefore, IBT’s planned strike would be unlawful. (Mot. for TRO 17:11–22:13). 18 Moreover, Allegiant asserts that is has met any obligation it may have under Section 8 of the 19 NLGA. (Id. 25:17–27:23). Accordingly, the Court finds that Allegiant has shown a likelihood 20 of success on the merits. 21 B. 22 Allegiant asserts that it would suffer irreparable harm absent temporary relief. For 23 example, Allegiant asserts that a one-day strike “could cost the company in excess of $7.7 24 million in lost revenue, fare refunds, vouchers to displaced/inconvenienced passengers, and 25 other disruption expenses.” (Mot. for TRO 23:21–20). Moreover, Allegiant asserts that Likelihood of Irreparable Harm in the Absence of Temporary Relief Page 4 of 7 1 “[p]assengers whose flights are cancelled certainly would be less likely to fly with Allegiant in 2 the future, damaging its goodwill with its customers (and also the airports to which Allegiant 3 flies).” (Id. 23:13–11; Decl. of Steven E. Harfst ¶ 28, ECF No. 10-1). “Evidence of threatened 4 loss of prospective customers or goodwill certainly supports a finding of the possibility of 5 irreparable harm.” Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush & Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 6 841 (9th Cir. 2001). Accordingly, the Court finds that Allegiant would suffer irreparable harm 7 in the absence of temporary relief. The Balance of Equities Tips in Plaintiff’s Favor 8 C. 9 The balancing aspect of the TRO analysis requires courts to weigh “the competing 10 claims of injury and [] consider the effect on each party of the granting or withholding of the 11 requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Village of Gambell, AK, 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). “It is 12 sufficient that maintenance of the status quo until exhaustion of the procedures mandated by the 13 Act, comports with the language and policy of the Act.” Consol. Rail Corp., 735 F. Supp. at 14 1272. Accordingly, the Court finds that the balance of equities tips in Allegiant’s favor. The issuance of a TRO benefits the public’s interest. 15 D. 16 “The public interest analysis for the issuance of [injunctive relief] requires [district 17 courts] to consider whether there exists some critical public interest that would be injured by 18 the grant of preliminary relief.” Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1138 19 (9th Cir. 2011) (citation omitted). In this case, the Court finds no such public interest that 20 would be injured by the issuance of such injunctive relief. Rather, the injunction furthers the 21 public interest by insuring the continued operation of air travel on a major carrier. See Delta Air 22 Lines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Intern., 238 F.3d 1300, 1308 n.18 (11th Cir. 2001). 23 IV. NOTICE OF RELATED CASES 24 In the interest of judicial economy and familiarity, Defendants’ request to transfer Case 25 No. 2:15-cv-00580-GMN-PAL, Allegiant Air, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Page 5 of 7 1 Airline Division et al., to the Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge, and 2 the Honorable George W. Foley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, is hereby GRANTED. 3 V. CONCLUSION 4 For the foregoing reasons, the Court makes the following orders: 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Ex Parte Motion for Temporary Restraining 6 Order (ECF No. 10) filed by Plaintiff Allegiant Air, LLC is GRANTED. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and 8 members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, are hereby temporarily 9 restrained pending a hearing on, and resolution of, Allegiant’s motion for a preliminary 10 injunction in this matter from in any manner or by any means directing, calling, causing, 11 authorizing, inducing, instigating, conducting, continuing, encouraging, or engaging in any 12 strike, work stoppage, picketing, sick-out, slow-down, work-to-rule campaign, or other 13 concerted action which is intended to interfere with Allegiant’s normal operations in violation 14 of the RLA. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants, their officers, agents, employees, and 16 members, and all persons acting in concert or participation with them, shall immediately take 17 all reasonable steps with their power to prevent the aforesaid actions and to refrain from 18 continuing the aforesaid actions, if commenced. 19 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff shall post a nominal bond of ten thousand 20 dollars ($10,000) because the evidence indicates that Defendants will suffer only minimal, if 21 any, damage by the issuance of this temporary restraining order. 22 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall transfer Case No. 2:15-cv- 23 00580-GMN-PAL, Allegiant Air, LLC v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline 24 Division et al., to the Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, United States District Judge, and the 25 Honorable George W. Foley, Jr., United States Magistrate Judge, and all future pleadings Page 6 of 7 1 2 shall bear the following Case No.: 2:15-cv-00580-APG-GWF. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants shall have until Monday, April 6, 3 2015, to file their Response Brief to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 4 11). Thereafter, Plaintiff shall have until Wednesday, April 8, 2015, to file their Reply Brief. 5 The matter shall be set for hearing on Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction on Friday, 6 April 10, 2015, at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 6C before the Honorable Andrew P. Gordon, 7 United States District Judge. 8 DATED this 1st day of April, 2015. 9 10 11 12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, Chief Judge United States District Judge 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Page 7 of 7

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?