IBTCWHA, LOCAL UNION NO. 2702, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
WESTERN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES; AIR TRANSPORT EMPLOYEES, PLAINITFF-APPELLANT, V. WESTERN AIR LINES, INC., DEFENDANT-APPELLEE
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The Ninth Circuit held that the appeal must be dismissed as moot because the merger, which the unions sought to prevent through arbitration and injunction, has already occurred, rendering the requested relief unavailable.
Unions sued to compel arbitration and enjoin a merger, alleging violation of collective bargaining agreements. The district court denied relief, but t…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
On remand from the United States Supreme Court.
Before GOODWIN, Chief Judge, and SCHROEDER and POOLE, Circuit Judges.
ORDER
This matter is before us after the United States Supreme Court vacated our decision in IBTCWHA, Local Union No. 2707 v. Western Air Lines, Inc., 813 F. 2d 1359 (9th Cir.1987), and remanded for consideration of mootness. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, Airline Division, — U.S. -, 108 S.Ct. 53, 98 L.Ed.2d 18 (1987). The unions originally filed this action to compel Western Air Lines to submit to arbitration of the unions’ claim that Western’s agreement to merge with Delta Air Lines violated collective bargaining agreements between Western and the unions. The relief sought was an order compelling Western to arbitrate and an injunction prohibiting the merger. The district court denied the relief, and in an expedited appeal we ordered arbitration and conditionally stayed the merger. Upon the airline’s ex parte application to Justice O’Connor, our stay was lifted and the merger took place. Accordingly, none of the relief sought in the original complaint is now available. See 13A C. Wright, A. Miller & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3533.3, p. 261 (1984) (“[t]he central question of all mootness problems is whether changes in the circumstances that prevailed at the beginning of litigation have forestalled any occasion for meaningful relief”). We express no opinion as to the viability of any claims that may be asserted in the post-merger context. None are present in this case.
Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as moot, and the district court should vacate its decision. See United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36 (1950).
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Britton v. Co-Op Banking Grp., 916 F.2d 1405 (9th Cir. 1990)
-
Ass'n OF Flight Attendants, AFL-CIO v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 879 F.2d 906 (D.C. Cir. 1989)
-
Ry. Labor Executives Ass'n v. Chesapeake Western Railway, 915 F.2d 116 (4th Cir. 1990)
Previewing 3 of 6 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36 (U.S. 1950)
- Ibtcwha v. W. AIR Lines, Inc., 813 F.2d 1359 (9th Cir. 1987)