US Airline Pilots Association v. Velez et al

Filing 45

ORDER granting 33 Motion to Amend/Correct; denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; denying without prejudice 19 Motion to Remand; denying as moot 24 Motion for Discovery. Signed by District Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr on 06/03/2015. (jlk)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
CHARLOTTE DIVISION
3:14-cv-577-RJC-DCK
US AIRWAY PILOTS ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff,
v.
ROGER VELEZ, on behalf of himself and all
similarly situated former America West Pilots,
and LEONIDAS, LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

THIS MATTER comes before the Court on Defendant Velez’s Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 7), Defendant Leonidas’ Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State
a Claim and for Lack of Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 8), Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19),
Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction, (Doc. No. 24), Plaintiff’s Motion to
Amend/Correct, (Doc. No. 33), the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation
(“M&R”), (Doc. No. 39), Defendants’ Objection to the M&R, (Doc. No. 42), and Plaintiff’s
Reply to Defendants’ Objection to the M&R, (Doc. No. 44).
In the M&R, the Magistrate Judge recommended that: Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery
On Jurisdiction be granted; Plaintiff's Motions to Remand and for a Hearing be denied without
prejudice to refile; and Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss be denied without prejudice to refile.
Defendants filed an Objection to the M&R of the Magistrate Judge on April 16, 2015, and
Plaintiff filed a Reply to Defendants’ Objection on April 28, 2015. It is ripe for review.
In Defendants’ Objection to the M&R, Defendants consented to personal jurisdiction. It
is therefore unnecessary to grant Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery On Jurisdiction. In all other

1

respects, this Court adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law specified in the Magistrate
Judge’s M&R.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand, (Doc. No. 19), is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE.
2. Plaintiff’s Motion For Jurisdictional Discovery, (Doc. No. 24), is DENIED AS
MOOT.
3. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint, (Doc. No. 33), is GRANTED.
Plaintiff shall file an Amended Complaint no later than twenty days after the effect of
this order.
4. Plaintiff’s Request for Hearing on Pending Motions is DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Defendant Leonidas’ Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State A Claim Upon Which
Relief Can Be Granted is DENIED AS MOOT, without prejudice to refile such
motion, if appropriate, after the Amended Complaint is filed.
Signed: June 3, 2015

2