Riki O’Hailpin; Nina Arizumi; Robert Espinosa; Erwin Young; Puanani Badiang; Sabrina Franks; Ronald Lum; Dan Saiki; Brandee Aukai v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.; Hawaiian Holdings, Inc.

Summary

The United States District Court for the District of Hawaii denied Plaintiffs’ motions for leave to file supplemental responses to Defendants’ motions to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under the Railway Labor Act. The court held that Plaintiffs had not shown good cause because the proposed deposition evidence and publicly available travel-restriction materials were not new or previously unavailable and were not material to the jurisdictional analysis. The court also denied Defendants’ motions to strike Plaintiffs’ unauthorized replies, while instructing that reply briefing is permitted only when specifically ordered.

Holdings

1. Plaintiffs failed to establish good cause to modify the court’s briefing schedule because they did not demonstrate diligence, newly unavailable information, or a material basis for supplemental briefing.
2. The proposed supplemental evidence and arguments would not materially assist the court in deciding whether interpretation of the applicable collective bargaining agreements was required to adjudicate plaintiffs’ accommodation claims and defendants’ undue-hardship defenses.
3. The court declined to strike plaintiffs’ unauthorized reply briefs, but directed the parties that reply briefing is permitted only when specifically ordered by the court.

Questions Presented

1. Whether plaintiffs established good cause to modify the court’s briefing schedule and file supplemental responses to defendants’ Railway Labor Act-based motions to dismiss.
2. Whether the deposition testimony and publicly available foreign travel-restriction materials plaintiffs sought to submit were new, previously unavailable, diligent, and material to the pending jurisdictional motions.
3. Whether defendants’ motions to strike plaintiffs’ unauthorized reply briefs should be granted.

Disposition

other