Southwest Airlines Co v. Transport Workers Union of America AFL-CIO Local 555
Filing
52
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The court hereby GRANTS Southwest's 42 motion. The effect of the court's previous 40 order is STAYED pending the outcome of Southwest's appeal. (Ordered by Senior Judge A. Joe Fish on 5/22/2018) (sss)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
SOUTHWEST AIRLINES CO.,
Plaintiff,
VS.
TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF
AMERICA AFL-CIO LOCAL 555,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
CIVIL ACTION NO.
3:16-CV-3536-G
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff Southwest Airlines Company
(“Southwest”) to stay the effect of the court’s previous order pending appeal (docket
entry 42). For the reasons set forth below, the plaintiff’s motion is granted.
I. BACKGROUND
A full recitation of the factual background of this case is provided in the
court’s memorandum opinion and order issued on December 29, 2017.
Memorandum Opinion and Order (docket entry 39). In that order, the court vacated
the portion of the arbitration award at issue that purported to rule on the merits of
the union’s grievance, left the remainder of the award untouched, and remanded the
dispute to arbitration before a new arbitrator. Id. at 26.
Southwest subsequently appealed this court’s decision and filed the instant
motion asking the court to stay the effect of its previous order, thereby preserving the
present status quo until the Fifth Circuit has had a chance to decide the case.
Plaintiff Southwest Airlines Co.’s Motion to Stay Effect of Court’s Order Pending
Appeal; Plaintiff Southwest Airlines Co.’s Brief in Support of its Motion to Stay
Effect of Court’s Order Pending Appeal (“Southwest’s Brief”) at 1 (docket entry 43).
The defendant, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, Local 555 (“TWU
Local 555”), opposes the plaintiff’s motion, insisting that the court should deny the
stay. See Defendant/Counter-Claimant TWU Local 556’s [sic] Response to SWA’s
Motion to Stay the Court’s Order (“TWU Local 555’s Response”) at 4 (docket entry
50). Southwest’s motion is now ripe for decision.
II. ANALYSIS
A. Legal Standard
“A stay is an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and
judicial review, and accordingly is not a matter of right, even if irreparable injury
might otherwise result to the appellant.” Barber v. Bryant, 833 F.3d 510, 511 (5th
Cir. 2016) (quoting Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009)). A stay is “an exercise
of judicial discretion, and the propriety of its issue is dependent upon the
circumstances of the particular case.” Nken, 556 U.S. at 433 (internal quotation
marks and brackets omitted). “The party requesting a stay bears the burden of
-2-
showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. at 433-34
(citing, inter alia, Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997)).
But even though the decision of whether to issue a stay is committed to the
court’s sound discretion, the Supreme Court has made clear that a legal standard
circumscribes that discretion. See id. at 434. Specifically, when faced with a motion
to stay, the court must consider four factors: “(1) whether the stay applicant has
made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the
applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay
will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where
the public interest lies.” Id. (quoting Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987)).
The court does not consider the four factors on equal footing; instead, “[t]he first two
factors . . . are the most critical.” Id.
B. Application
1. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
With respect to the first factor, the Fifth Circuit has stated that “the movant
need not always show a ‘probability’ of success on the merits; instead, the movant
need only present a substantial case on the merits when a serious legal question is
involved and show that the balance of the equities weighs heavily in favor of granting
the stay.” Ruiz v. Estelle (Ruiz I), 650 F.2d 555, 565 (5th Cir. 1981). But in a later
decision the Fifth Circuit further clarified the first factor, specifying that “[l]ikelihood
-3-
of success remains a prerequisite in the usual case even if it is not an invariable
requirement. Only if the balance of equities (i.e. consideration of the other three
factors) is . . . heavily tilted in the movant’s favor will we issue a stay in its absence,
and, even then, the issue must be one with patent substantial merit.” Ruiz v. Estelle
(Ruiz II), 666 F.2d 854, 856-57 (5th Cir. 1982) (internal quotation marks omitted).
Southwest contends that it has satisfied the first requirement for a stay
because this case involves a “serious legal question” and it has presented a
“substantial case on the merits.” See Southwest’s Brief at 5. Relying on language
from this court’s previous order rejecting Southwest’s arguments at summary
judgment, Southwest now maintains that “[t]he merits in this case are certainly close
enough to justify a stay,” and “[it] has a good argument that the arbitrator’s decision
should be vacated. . . .” Id. at 5-6.
Because the court agrees with Southwest’s characterization of the legal issues it
presented at summary judgment, the court concludes that Southwest has presented a
“serious legal question” and a “substantial case on the merits.” After all, as
Southwest correctly points out in its motion, the court’s previous memorandum
opinion and order reveals some possible tension in case law between the substantial
amount of deference federal courts must afford arbitrations under the Railway Labor
Act, and the need for judicial intervention when an arbitrator interjects his or her
own personal brand of industrial justice. See Memorandum Opinion and Order at
-4-
17-22; Southwest’s Brief at 6. Compare American Eagle Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots
Association, International, 343 F.3d 401, 406 (5th Cir. 2003) (“[A]n arbitrator may not
ignore the plain language of a collective bargaining agreement.”), with American
Airlines, Inc. v. Allied Pilots Association, No. 4:12-CV-0083-Y, 2012 WL 12872585, at
*4 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 2, 2012) (Means, J.) (specifying that review of arbitration awards
under the Railway Labor Act is “among the narrowest known to the law”), and
Continental Airlines, Inc. v. Air Line Pilots Association, International, 555 F.3d 399, 406
(5th Cir. 2009) (concluding that an arbitrator’s decision need only “draw its essence
from the contracts and not simply reflect the [arbitrator’s] own notions of industrial
justice, so that the decision is grounded in the contracts . . . . [And] that a court is
convinced he committed serious error does not suffice to overturn his decision”).
Accordingly, if the balance of the equities -- “i.e. consideration of the other
three factors” -- is heavily tilted in the movant’s favor, the court will grant
Southwest’s motion and issue a stay. See Ruiz II, 666 F.2d at 856.
2. Irreparable Injury to Southwest
As to the second requirement, irreparable injury, Southwest contends that
“[a]bsent a stay, Southwest -- and [TWU Local 555], for that matter -- will expend a
significant amount of time and resources engaging in yet another arbitration
proceeding that the Fifth Circuit might subsequently nullify.” Southwest’s Brief at 7.
The court is sensitive to the significant amount of resources the parties would
-5-
have to expend in yet another round of arbitration proceedings. See id. (emphasizing
that if arbitration were to proceed before the Fifth Circuit rendered its decision on
Southwest’s pending appeal, it would be the third arbitration proceeding to date
between the parties on this specific issue). The court is also mindful of the issues
that might ensue should arbitration proceedings move forward before the Fifth
Circuit renders a decision which could effectively moot any such proceeding. See,
e.g., Mazera v. Varsity Ford Services, LLC, No. 07-12970, 2008 WL 2223907, at *2
(E.D. Mich. May 29, 2008) (“[A]llowing the case to proceed to arbitration while the
case is on appeal may be premature because the validity of the arbitration agreement
is still at issue. Moreover, . . . the outcome of the arbitration proceeding may be
mooted depending upon the decision on appeal.”), aff’d in part and rev’d in part, 565
F.3d 997 (6th Cir. 2009). As such, the court concludes that the second factor weighs
in favor of a stay.
3. Substantial Injury to TWU Local 555
To date, it does not appear that the parties have scheduled an additional
round of arbitration proceedings to address the merits of TWU Local 555’s grievance,
or, at the very least, the parties have not informed the court of any scheduled
arbitration. Thus, the only conceivable harm to TWU Local 555 is a potential delay
in the resolution of the merits of its grievance through arbitration -- proceedings the
parties have yet to even schedule. Because the court is not convinced that a relatively
-6-
slight delay pending the outcome of Southwest’s appeal amounts to substantial
injury, this factor, too, weighs in favor of granting a stay.
4. Public Interest
The court does not foresee any interference with or disservice to the public
interest. On the contrary, the public interest will be served by a swift determination
from the Fifth Circuit and by preserving the parties’ valuable resources in the interim.
See id. (“The public interest is best served by expedient litigation that does not
unnecessarily exhaust resources.”).
III. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, because the balance of the factors weighs in favor of a stay, the
court hereby GRANTS Southwest’s motion. The effect of the court’s previous order
is STAYED pending the outcome of Southwest’s appeal.
SO ORDERED.
May 22, 2018.
___________________________________
A. JOE FISH
Senior United States District Judge
-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?