Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit

Ruby v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.

360 F.2d 691

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1966-05-10
Topic
bankruptcy

PER CURIAM: After this appeal had been taken from Judge Levet’s denial of a preliminary injunction, D.C., 252 F.Supp. 393, Judge Murphy dismissed the complaint in this case, in the exercise of his sound discretion, on the ground that a prior action (65 Civ. 2870) 252 F.Supp. 873, pending, as Judge Murphy stated “between the ‘same’ parties” would dispose of all the issues raised in this action. The appeal has become moot and is, accordingly, dismissed.* See Janousek v. Doyle, 313 F. *6922d 916 (8th Cir. 1963); Dempsey v. Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y., 131 F.2d 103 (7th Cir. 1942); but cf.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Ruby v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
4 opinions
RUBY v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC.,360 F.2d 691(2nd Cir. 1966)
Charles H. RUBY, as President of the Air Line Pilots Association,
International, and the Air Line Pilots Association, International, an
unincorporated association, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. PAN AMERICAN WORLD
AIRWAYS, INC., Defendant-Appellee, and Flight Engineers' International
Association, PAA Chapter, Intervenor-Appellee.
No. 401 Docket 30377.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Submitted May 4, 1966.
Decided May 10, 1966.
Cohen Weiss, New York City (Henry Weiss, Herbert A. Levy and Robert S. Savelson, New York City, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.

Poletti, Freidin, Prashker, Feldman Gartner, New York City (Jesse Freidin, Murray Gartner and Edward R. Cohen, New York City, on the brief), for defendant-appellee.

Daniel Kornblum and O'Donnell Schwartz, New York City (Asher W. Schwartz and Daniel Kornblum, New York City, on the brief), for intervenor-appellee.
Before SMITH, KAUFMAN and FEINBERG, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
After this appeal had been taken from Judge Levet's denial of a preliminary injunction, D.C.,252 F. Supp. 393, Judge Murphy dismissed the complaint in this case, in the exercise of his sound discretion, on the ground that a prior action (65 Civ. 2870)252 F. Supp. 873, pending, as Judge Murphy stated "between the `same' parties" would dispose of all the issues raised in this action. The appeal has become moot and is, accordingly, dismissed.fn*See Janousek v. Doyle,Page 692313 F.2d 916(8th Cir. 1963); Dempsey v. Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y.,131 F.2d 103(7th Cir. 1942); but cf. Stell v. Savannah-Chatham Board of Education,333 F.2d 55(5th Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Roberts v. Stell,379 U.S. 933, 85 S.Ct. 332, 13 L.Ed.2d 344 (1964).
  1. In the interest of efficient judicial administration, we note that Judge Levet did not abuse his discretion in denying plaintiffs' application for a preliminary injunction. Accordingly, we suggest to the parties and the District Court that they proceed promptly with the prior pending case and to a determination of which agreement between Pan American and the Air Line Pilots Association, International, or between Pan American and the Flight Engineers' International Association, PAA Chapter, is controlling on the question of whether the so-called "new hires" are required to pay dues to FEIA, as a condition of remaining in the employ of Pan American as flight engineers. Once this question is resolved, if a "minor" dispute still remains in the case over the interpretation of the language of the governing agreement, it should be settled by the System Board of Adjustment. ↩