TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 357 v. REPUBLIC AIRLINE, INC.
1:15-cv-01066
S.D. Ind.Sep 4, 2015Background
- Teamsters Local Union No. 357 sued Republic Airline, Shuttle America, and Republic Airways Holdings alleging defendants lacked contractual authority to pay pilots extra for unassigned flying on days off and to offer signing bonuses, and that such payments represent a major dispute under the Railway Labor Act (RLA).
- Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1), arguing the dispute is a minor dispute committed to arbitration before a System Board of Adjustment and supporting that position with three employee declarations and 27 exhibits.
- Defendants’ dismissal motion advances a factual attack on jurisdiction by submitting extrinsic evidence asserting an existing contractual right to make the payments.
- Plaintiff sought permission to conduct jurisdictional discovery targeted at the declarations and exhibits before responding to the motion to dismiss, and served document requests and interrogatories contemporaneously with the motion to defer briefing.
- The court recognized that the plaintiff bears the burden to establish jurisdiction and found permitting discovery reasonable (citing potential abuse of discretion if affidavits are accepted without opportunity to contest).
- The court granted Plaintiff’s motion to defer briefing, deemed the discovery requests served, ordered responses by September 28, 2015, and directed the parties to address any further jurisdictional discovery at the initial pretrial conference (with a briefing schedule to follow completion of such discovery).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether court should allow jurisdictional discovery before responding to a factual 12(b)(1) challenge | Plaintiff asked to test and contest defendants’ affidavits/exhibits via targeted discovery | Defendants argued their submitted declarations/exhibits resolve jurisdictional facts and dismissal should proceed without discovery | Court granted jurisdictional discovery and deferred briefing on the 12(b)(1) motion |
| Nature of the jurisdictional attack: factual vs facial | Plaintiff contends the complaint alleges a major dispute and requires adjudication | Defendants treat the attack as factual, supplying evidence of existing contractual rights making the dispute minor and arbitrable | Court treated Defendants’ motion as a factual attack and allowed plaintiff to contest that evidence through discovery |
| Burden of proof on jurisdiction | Plaintiff bears burden to prove federal jurisdiction exists | Defendants asserted evidence showing lack of jurisdiction (arbitrability) | Court relied on plaintiff’s burden to justify permitting discovery to meet that burden |
| Whether court may rely solely on defendants’ affidavits without plaintiff’s opportunity to contest | Plaintiff argued reliance without contest would be improper and could be abuse of discretion | Defendants implicitly urged the court to credit their affidavits and exhibits | Court cited precedent cautioning against crediting unchallenged affidavits and refused to decide jurisdiction before permitting contesting discovery |
Key Cases Cited
- Apex Digital, Inc. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 572 F.3d 440 (7th Cir. 2009) (distinguishing facial and factual attacks on subject-matter jurisdiction)
- United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Angus Chem. Co., 322 F.3d 942 (7th Cir. 2003) (party mounting factual attack may submit affidavits and other material; plaintiff bears burden of proof)
- Wallenfang v. Havel, 707 F. Supp. 2d 800 (E.D. Wis. 2010) (court may weigh evidence submitted in a factual jurisdictional challenge)
- Sapperstein v. Hager, 188 F.3d 852 (7th Cir. 1999) (district court abused discretion by relying on an unchallenged affidavit on jurisdictional facts)