Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

Welcome to Airline Pilot Forums - Connect and get the inside scoop on Airline Companies

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ. Join our community today and start interacting with existing members. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free.


User Tag List

Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 08-17-2016, 11:50 AM   #1  
On Reserve
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Mar 2016
Posts: 18
Default USAPA treasury to be divided to USAPA pilots?

Interesting find. A coalition of the senior most USAPA pilots who were never affected by the Nicoleu Award are standing up on behalf of all East and West pilots to 1) Ensure that USAPA is immediately dissolved 2) Return all treasury monies and any related claims to East and West pilots.

East and West pilots interested in having upwards of $1500 returned directly to them should join this class action lawsuit!

覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧覧

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA CHARLOTTE DIVISION
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:14-CV-577-RJC-DCK
US AIRLINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, ) Plaintiff, )
v. ) ROGER VELEZ, and LEONIDAS, LLC, )
Defendants. )

OBJECTION OF EAST PILOT CLASS MEMBER FREDERICK M. BROWN, JR. TO PROPOSED SETTLEMENT AND REQUEST TO BE HEARD

East Pilot Settlement Class member Frederick M. Brown, Jr. (徹bjector) objects to the proposed settlement and requests that he and his undersigned attorney, William R. Wilder, be permitted to speak at the Fairness Hearing in support of his objections as follows.

1. Objection No. 1 (Inadequacy of East Pilot Class Representatives)

Objector objects to paragraph 1 of the Proposed Settlement described in the class Notice because the representatives and class counsel of the 摘ast Pilot Settlement Class are inadequate representatives of this class.

(a) The East Pilot Settlement Class counsel, the law firm of Seham, Seham, Meltz & Peterson (鍍he Seham law firm), has an irreconcilable and non-waivable conflict of interest with East Pilot Settlement Class members. The law firm represents individual defendant officers in this case and negotiated the proposed settlement agreement on behalf of the defendant officers. The proposed settlement grants the defendant officers a broad release of all past, present, future and executory claims that East Pilot Settlement Class Members may have against the defendant officers. (Settlement, カカ 14, 15, 18, 19) Further, the settlement proposes that the Union reimburse the individual defendant officers attorney痴 fees and expenses they incur and/or paid the Seham law firm for representing them. The Seham law firm may not adequately or vigorously pursue the interests of the East Pilot Settlement Class because the law firm is simultaneously representing and protecting the interests of individual officer defendants. Because of the Seham law firm痴 conflict of interest, the representatives and counsel of the East Pilot Settlement Class are not adequate representatives of this class. F.R.Civ.P. 23(a)(4); National Air Traffic Controllers Association v. Dental Plans, Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12544 (N.D. GA. 2006)

(b) Proposed Class Representative John Owens (徹wens) is an inadequate class representative for the additional reason that he is an officer of USAPA and a potential defendant in this proceeding since he came into office on April 18, 2015 and was an officer during the period of alleged improper expenditures. Owens position obligated him to participate on behalf of USAPA, not in the interest of East Pilot Settlement Class members, in negotiation of the settlement agreement.

(c) Proposed Class Representative Bob Burdick is not an adequate representative for the additional reason that he acted as a Duly Designated Representative under the USAPA Constitution of defendant Ronald Nelson during 2015.

2. Objection No. 2 (Inadequacy of the class Notice)

Objector objects to paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 18 and 19 of the Proposed Settlement described in the class Notice because the Notice is inadequate and does not permit a reasoned decision to be made about the fairness of the proposed settlement to East Pilot Settlement Class members because it does not disclose necessary information.

(a) The Notice does not disclose the amount of money currently in the USAPA treasury to enable a determination of the percentage of the total treasury being paid to the West Pilot Settlement Class attorneys and affiliated representatives, and how much money, if any, will be available at some undetermined time to be paid to East Pilot Settlement Class members upon dissolution of USAPA. (Settlement カカ 2, 3, 4)

(b) The Notice fails to inform why 甜a]pproximately $3.6 million is an appropriate, reasonable or fair amount to pay to the Addington III class representatives to settle their application for attorneys fees of 殿pproximately $3.7 million in their duty of fair representation lawsuit pending in the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, or why this payment is included in a proposed settlement resolving actions alleging LMRDA Section 501(b) claims that the defendant Union officers breached their fiduciary duties. The payment of Addington attorney fees for the benefit of the West Pilot Settlement Class and their representatives is not being made in connection with dissolution of USAPA. The proposed settlement does not provide for dissolution of USAPA. (Settlement カカ 2, 3, 4)

(c) The Notice fails to inform why West Pilot class members representatives should receive a distribution from the USAPA Treasury prior to the dissolution of USAPA, contrary to the requirement of the USAPA Constitution. Nor does the Notice inform of the percentage of the USAPA treasury being distributed to West Pilot class member representatives to enable determination of whether their distribution complies with the formula requirements of the USAPA Constitution. (Settlement カカ 2, 3, 4, 5, 7)

(d) The Notice does not set forth an explanation why USAPA believes the settlement complies with its Constitution and Bylaws or is consistent with its current officers fiduciary duty owed to USAPA and its members, and does not describe what, if any, benefit USAPA receives in the proposed settlement. (Settlement, カ 5)

(e) The Notice fails to provide information describing the indemnification claims by the defendant officers against USAPA. The Notice does not contain an amount or estimate of attorney痴 fees and expenses the proposed settlement authorizes to be paid to or on behalf of the defendants by USAPA and does not offer any legal justification for paying the defendants attorney痴 fees and expenses. (Settlement, カカ 6, 7)

(f) The Notice fails to provide sufficient information to evaluate why USAPA is being authorized in the proposed settlement to initiate litigation against its insurer, AIG, which can only delay USAPA痴 dissolution. The Notice does not describe the amount of insurance coverage at issue, the potential monetary liability of USAPA presented by the Karas litigation or any other claims AIG has denied coverage for, the estimated cost of such litigation, the legal theories supporting the claims against AIG, or the likelihood of success of such litigation. (Settlement, カ 7)

(g) The Notice fails to inform or estimate the amount of defendants attorneys fees and expenses being paid by USAPA under the proposed settlement. The Notice does not describe the amount and/or nature and/or recipients of 菟reviously incurred expenses being authorized to be paid under the proposed settlement by USAPA. This lack of information in the Notice does not enable a judgment to be made about appropriateness of such USAPA expenditures or the amount of money, if any, that will remain in the USAPA treasury after all these expenditures authorized by the proposed settlement are made by USAPA, that could only then be disbursed to the East Pilot Settlement Class members upon dissolution in accordance with USAPA痴 Constitution. (Settlement, カ 7)

(h) The Notice fails to inform of specific claims potentially available to East Pilot Settlement Class members against defendants that are being released by the proposed settlement. The Notice does not mention any claims in the litigation that have been alleged by members of the East Pilot Settlement Class. (Settlement, カカ 14, 15, 18, 19)

3. Objection No. 3 (The Proposed Settlement is unfair to East Pilots)

Objector objects to Paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the proposed settlement because it is unfair to East Pilots.

(a) The proposed settlement approves inadequate representatives and class counsel for the East Pilot Settlement Class who did not participate in negotiations of the proposed settlement on behalf of and in the interest of East Pilots and who have interests in conflict with the East Pilot Settlement Class.

(b) East Pilots receive no distribution from USAPA under the proposed settlement except for whatever residue, if any, remains at some undeterminable time that USAPA officers decide to dissolve USAPA in exchange for broadly releasing 菟ast, present, future or executory claims they may have against any party to these actions. (Settlement, カ 15(c)) East pilots will not receive the percentage of the USAPA treasury remaining after resolution of USAPA痴 liabilities that is dictated by the USAPA Constitution. East Pilots comprised approximately 68% of USAPA痴 members on September 16, 2014.

4. Objection No. 4 (The proposed settlement violates the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act)

Objector objects to Paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 14, 15, 18 and 19 of the proposed settlement because its terms violate the requirements of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act.

(a) Section 501(b) of the LMRDA, 29 U.S. C. 501(b), states:

When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for
the benefit of the labor organization. (emphasis added) A claim under Section 501 of the LMRDA is a derivative claim on behalf and for the benefit of a union. The proposed settlement does not recover any money or provide any benefit to USAPA, but instead pays money to plaintiff West Pilot class members and their representatives, including their attorneys fee claim in the Addington litigation. The monetary relief the proposed settlement provides to West Pilot Settlement Class members and their representatives cannot be awarded in a LMRDA Section 501(b) claim. See, Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 831-32 (9th Cir. 1968); Reed v. United Transportation Union, 633 F. Supp. 1516, 1527-28 (WD NC 1986), rev壇. on other grounds, 828 F.2d 1066 (4th Cir. 1987), rev壇. on other grounds, 488 U.S. 319 (1989); Slavich v. Local Union 551, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24387, *9-*10 (ND IL 1986); Fabian v. Freight Driver Local Union No. 557, 448 F. Supp. 835, 840 (D. Md. 1978).

(b) The proposed settlement violates the LMRDA because it pays monies from the USAPA treasury to or on behalf of West Pilot members prior to dissolution of USAPA and satisfaction of USAPA痴 liabilities, which violates USAPA痴 Constitution. The payments by the proposed settlement to representatives on behalf of West Pilot members is not in compliance with the dissolution distribution formula established under the USAPA Constitution and is not being paid in connection with USAPA痴 dissolution.

(c) The proposed settlement sanctions payment of the individual officer defendants attorney痴 fees and expenses even though they have not prevailed in the LMRDA litigation and have agreed to a permanent injunction against them. Individual defendant officers in a LMRDA Section 501(b) lawsuit must prevail in the lawsuit to be entitled to receive reimbursement of their attorney痴 fees and expenses. Milone v. English, 306 F.2d 814, 817 (D.C. Cir. 1962); United States v. Local 1804-1, Int値. Longshoremen's Assoc., 732 F. Supp. 434, 436-37 (SD NY 1990) (citing authorities).

(d) The proposed settlement sanctions the continued existence of USAPA even though it no longer has a representative function to serve for its members, and immunizes USAPA痴 officers and BPR members against potential future LMRDA violations by authorizing USAPA to continue in existence despite its lack of representational purpose.

(e) The proposed settlement improperly sanctions future conduct by USAPA officers that would further dissipate USAPA痴 treasury following the proposed disbursements to representatives of the West Pilot Settlement Class by allowing USAPA and/or its officers to initiate new litigation against insurer AIG with no showing of benefit to USAPA or its members.

5. Objection No. 5 (The West Pilot representatives are improper LMRDA plaintiffs)

A union member may bring a LMRDA Section 501 claim only if the member is seeking relief for the labor organization, not relief for himself or other individual union members. Under the proposed settlement, the West Pilot LMRDA plaintiffs obtain relief only for themselves and their representatives, not USAPA. By negotiating the proposed settlement, the West Pilot LMRDA plaintiffs have revealed themselves to be improper plaintiffs who cannot maintain the LMRDA claims alleged. Phillips v. Osborne, 403 F.2d 826, 831-32 (9th Cir. 1968); Reed v. United Transportation Union, 633 F. Supp. 1516, 1527-28 (WD NC 1986), rev'd. on other grounds, 828 F.2d 1066 (41h Cir. 1987), rev'd. on other grounds, 488 U.S. 319 (1989); Slavich v. Local Union 551, 1986 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24387, *9-*10 (ND IL 1986); Fabian v. Freight Driver Local Union No. 557, 448 F. Supp. 835, 840 (D. Md. 1978). Dated: July 11, 2016
rabsing76 is offline  
Old 08-17-2016, 06:48 PM   #2  
Line Holder
 
Joined APC: May 2009
Posts: 25
Default

How does somebody join?

It looks like if the proposed settlement goes through, a bunch of attorneys get all the built up dues money from all the pilots but if this objection passes then the pilots themselves get the money. Is that about right?

Seems like something both east and west might even agree on. Who wouldn't want their money back?!
Diablo135 is offline  
Old 08-17-2016, 06:56 PM   #3  
Weekend workaholic
 
flyinawa's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jun 2008
Position: A320 FO
Posts: 523
Default

Yeah...sweet deal for EVERYONE.
flyinawa is offline  
 
 
 

 
Post Reply
 



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes


Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nic ... Arado 234 American 694 10-04-2014 05:49 PM
Eagle TA samballs Regional 340 09-26-2012 09:23 PM
RAH Representation Election - Write in "RPC"! RPC Unity Union Talk 149 06-30-2011 08:39 PM
Local357 EXCO response to the RPC(FAPA!!) SF340guy Union Talk 92 06-12-2011 06:30 PM
Usapa attempts to have AWA pilots fired. cactiboss Major 87 10-03-2008 02:24 PM


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 05:08 AM.