ADAIR et al v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., No. 4:2010cv00481 - Document 70 (N.D. Tex. 2010)

Court Description: Memorandum Opinion and Order....the deft's motion granted and all claims by plaintiff dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge John McBryde on 10/5/2010) (wrb)

Download PDF
ADAIR et al v. AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. Doc. 70 lJ.S. DISTRICT COURT :NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRI T COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF T AS. FORT WORTH DIVISION SCOTT ADAIR, ET AL., § I OGI - 52010 \ . ._.__._J CLERK, IT.S. DISTRICT COURT § Plaintiffs, FILED ------------"1 § Deputy § VS. § NO. 4:10-CV-481-A § AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC. , § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER Before the court for decision is the motion of defendant, American Airlines, Inc., to dismiss the complaint, as revised and amended, of plaintiffs, Scott Adair, Dennis Bryant, Kathleen Cosand, Wayne Dennis, David Ditzel, James Kranich, Curt LowerYt Scott McKee, Michael Meland, Robert Mykytiuk, Chad Poirier, and Christopher Sestich, for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The court has concluded that such motion should be granted. The ground of the motion is that this case presents only a minor dispute within the meaning of the Railway Labor Act, with the consequence that this court lacks jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Defendant supports its motion with citation to a number of court decisions standing for the proposition that the courts lack jurisdiction to hear minor disputes absent exceptional circumstances. See, e.g., Miklavic v. USAir, Inc., 21 F.3d 551, Dockets.Justia.com 555 (3d Cir. 1994). Plaintiffs agree with defendant's assessment that this case presents a minor dispute and that the court would not have jurisdiction to hear it if an exceptional circumstance does not exist in this case. Plaintiffs urge that there is an exceptional circumstance that causes this court to have jurisdiction to hear the dispute and that is that resort to administrative remedies would be futile. Bearing in mind that plaintiffs have the burden to establish that this court has jurisdiction to entertain the dispute presented to the court by this action, the court has studied the record to the end of determining whether plaintiffs have established that the futility exception applies. The court is satisfied that plaintiffs have not established that such an exception exists in this case. Therefore, The court ORDERS that defendant's motion be, and is hereby, granted, and that all claims and causes of action asserted by plaintiffs in the above-captioned action be, and are hereby, dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. SIGNED October 5, 2010 / Judge 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.