Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc.
- Maxine Chesney
- 3:21-cv-04674
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Horowitz v. SkyWest Airlines, Judge Chesney granted SAPA’s motion to intervene in a class action over pilots’ California wage claims.
The ruling affects SAPA, which was permitted to join Horowitz’s lawsuit as a defendant, as well as Horowitz, SkyWest, and the proposed class of current and former pilots.
What happened
Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. concerns Gregory Horowitz’s claims that SkyWest violated California law by failing to provide required meal and rest breaks, reimburse pilots for work-related personal cellphone use, and provide accurate wage statements. He brought the claims for himself and on behalf of a proposed class of current and former pilots.
The SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association, or SAPA, asked to join the case as a defendant. Horowitz opposed the request, arguing in part that SAPA’s interests were already adequately protected by SkyWest. The court found that SAPA’s motion was timely, involved common legal and factual questions, and would not destroy the court’s jurisdiction under the Class Action Fairness Act. It also found that SAPA’s members had interests that could differ from SkyWest’s.
Judge Maxine Chesney granted SAPA’s motion to intervene. The court vacated the scheduled hearing and ordered SAPA to file its proposed answer within five court days.
The detailed version
- Horowitz v. Skywest Airlines, Inc. · No. 3:21-cv-04674
- Maxine Chesney
- Jan. 3, 2023
Background
Gregory Horowitz, a former SkyWest Airlines pilot, filed an operative First Amended Complaint against SkyWest. He asserts California-law claims on his own behalf and on behalf of a class of current and former pilots. The opinion states that he alleges SkyWest failed to provide California-based pilots all required meal and rest breaks, failed to reimburse pilots for using personal cellphones while working, and failed to provide accurate wage statements. Horowitz also alleges, on his own behalf, that he was not paid for all hours worked.
The SkyWest Airlines Pilot Association (SAPA) moved for permission to intervene as a defendant, either by right or permissively. Horowitz opposed the motion, and SAPA filed a reply.
Court’s analysis
The court addressed permissive intervention. Permissive intervention allows a person or organization to join an existing lawsuit when three requirements are met: an independent basis for federal jurisdiction, a timely motion, and a common question of law or fact between the proposed intervenor’s defense and the existing case.
The court found that SAPA’s motion was timely and that common legal and factual questions existed between SAPA’s proposed defenses and Horowitz’s claims. It also found an independent jurisdictional basis. The case had been removed to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act, and the removal papers showed that SkyWest was a citizen of Utah while Horowitz was a citizen of California. The court concluded that SAPA’s intervention would not destroy the minimal diversity required under that statute.
The court rejected Horowitz’s argument that intervention would serve no purpose because SkyWest adequately protected SAPA’s interests. Based on SAPA’s motion, the court found that SAPA’s members had protectable interests that could, at various points, diverge from SkyWest’s interests.
The footnote states that, because the court found permissive intervention warranted, it did not address the parties’ arguments concerning intervention as of right.
Ruling
Judge Maxine Chesney granted SAPA’s motion to intervene. The court vacated the hearing scheduled for January 6, 2023, and ordered SAPA to file its proposed answer as a separate document within five court days after the order’s date. The order decided SAPA’s request to join the case; it did not decide the merits of Horowitz’s wage-related claims.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.