ODELL v. KALITTA AIR LLC (2023)

ORDER CLARIFYING FINALITY OF ORDER AND STAYING CASE FOR APPEAL

On June 20, 2023, an order was entered dismissing three claims and two plaintiffs from this case. Odell v. Kalitta Air, LLC, No. 1:22-CV-12290, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2023 WL 4084490, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 20, 2023) (dismissing “Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister” and “Counts I, III, and V with respect to Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister”).

On July 19, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion seeking clarification as to whether the Order is final and a stay pending appeal. ECF No. 48.

This Court may clarify an order sua sponte to “correct a mistake arising from oversight or omission.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(a). Similarly, this Court may clarify a prior order on a party's motion for “mistake” or “any other reason that justifies relief.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(1), (6). The Order at issue does not indicate whether it is final for purposes of appeal. This Court may issue a final judgment on some claims or parties if it decides that there is no just reason to delay appellate review. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).

The Order was final as to the dismissed claims and parties. This class action involves numerous plaintiffs and two defendants, with Galton, McAllister, and three claims entirely dismissed from the case. Because the Order dismissed multiple parties and claims on grounds that do not affect the remaining claims, finality under Civil Rule 54(b) is apt. Indeed, the issue of whether the dismissed claims are precluded under the Railway Labor Act should be decided before the parties advance to discovery, which could also be efficient for the parties to discuss settlement.

Lastly, Plaintiffs note that “in the event the Court is inclined to grant interlocutory appeal, Defendants do not oppose staying the case pending resolution of the appeal.” ECF No. 48 at PageID.766–67. Without such opposition, the relevant factors warrant a stay under Civil Rule 62. See Little v. City of Saginaw, No. 1:21-CV-11104, ––– F.Supp.3d ––––, ––––, 2023 WL 4118566, at *2 (E.D. Mich. June 22, 2023) (“[T]his Court must consider the likelihood of success, the likelihood of irreparable harm to the moving party, any harm to others, and the public interest.” (citing Mich. Coal. of Radioactive Material Users, Inc. v. Griepentrog, 945 F.2d 150, 153 (6th Cir. 1991))). So the case will be stayed pending appeal.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Clarification as to Finality and a Stay Pending Appeal, ECF No. 48, is GRANTED to the extent that it seeks clarification that ECF No. 45 is a final order with respect to the dismissal of Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister and Counts I, III, and V with respect to Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister.

Further, it is ORDERED that the Order, ECF No. 45, is CLARIFIED AS FINAL with respect to (1) the dismissal of Counts I, III, and V with respect to Plaintiffs Webber, Hudnutt, Tougas, Galton, and McAllister; and (2) the dismissal of Plaintiffs Galton and McAllister.

Further, it is ORDERED that the above-captioned case is STAYED pending appeal or until further order of this Court.

Further, it is ORDERED that counsel SUBMIT a status report of the pending appeal every 3 months, beginning October 20, 2023.

THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United States District Judge