SpaceX, NLRB duel over proper venue for attack on agency's structure
SpaceX wants to nix order sending case from Texas to California
Lawsuit claims labor board's structure is unconstitutional
Company sued after agency accused it of illegally firing engineers
By Daniel Wiessner
Feb 23 (Reuters) -SpaceX on Friday doubled down on claims that a judge was wrong to send the rocket maker's lawsuit challenging the structure of the National Labor Relations Board from Texas to California, telling a U.S. appeals court that "plaintiffs are allowed to prefer forums with favorable caselaw."
SpaceX in a brief filed with the New Orleans-based 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said that while the case may have closer ties to California, it has implications for the entire company including a major launch facility and other operations based in Texas.
Federal law "does not confine venue to the 'best' venue," SpaceX said.
NLRB spokeswoman Kayla Blado declined to comment.
The company late last week filed an emergency petition with the 5th Circuit one day after U.S. District Judge Rolando Olvera in Brownsville, Texas transferred the case to Los Angeles, where SpaceX is facing claims before the labor board that it illegally fired engineers for criticizing CEO Elon Musk.
The 5th Circuit on Tuesday temporarily blocked the transfer so it could consider the petition.
SpaceX filed its lawsuit last month, one day after the NLRB issued a complaint against the company. The lawsuit claims the NLRB's in-house enforcement proceedings and limits on the removal of administrative judges and board members violate the U.S. Constitution. Starbucks, Amazon.com and Trader Joe's have since raised similar arguments in pending board cases, and two Starbucks baristas have filed separate lawsuits challenging the board's structure.
The board in court filings has made various arguments countering those claims, including that the ability to appeal administrative judges' rulings to the board, and board decisions to federal appeals courts, safeguards employers' constitutional rights.
In a brief on Thursday, the board told the 5th Circuit that SpaceX had not met the high bar for winning emergency relief from the court of showing that Olvera committed "extraordinary errors." SpaceX is based in California, as were most of the engineers who were fired, and the board case is proceeding in Los Angeles, the agency's lawyers said.
Federal courts in Texas have become a favored destination for legal challenges to government regulations and enforcement powers, with its high concentration of conservative judges and the fact that they are within the 5th Circuit, which is considered by many to be the most conservative U.S. appeals court.
The board on Thursday said the 5th Circuit lacked the ability to hear the petition because SpaceX must first ask the Los Angeles court to transfer the case back to Texas.
SpaceX in its reply said that was unrealistic, noting that as of Friday morning the case had not been docketed in the California court. The company is seeking to block a hearing in the NLRB case scheduled for March 5.
The case is In re Space Exploration Technologies, 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 24-40103.
For SpaceX: Harry Johnson, Michael Kenneally, Catherine Eschbach and Amanda Salz of Morgan Lewis & Bockius
For the NLRB: David Boehm
Read more:
SpaceX loses bid to keep challenge to NLRB structure in Texas court
Ex-SpaceX workers seek to intervene in company's lawsuit against NLRB
SpaceX sues US agency that accused it of firing workers critical of Elon Musk
SpaceX illegally fired workers critical of Elon Musk, US labor agency says
Anti-union Starbucks worker challenges structure of US labor board
Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York
Related Assets
Latest News
Disclaimer: The XM Group entities provide execution-only service and access to our Online Trading Facility, permitting a person to view and/or use the content available on or via the website, is not intended to change or expand on this, nor does it change or expand on this. Such access and use are always subject to: (i) Terms and Conditions; (ii) Risk Warnings; and (iii) Full Disclaimer. Such content is therefore provided as no more than general information. Particularly, please be aware that the contents of our Online Trading Facility are neither a solicitation, nor an offer to enter any transactions on the financial markets. Trading on any financial market involves a significant level of risk to your capital.
All material published on our Online Trading Facility is intended for educational/informational purposes only, and does not contain – nor should it be considered as containing – financial, investment tax or trading advice and recommendations; or a record of our trading prices; or an offer of, or solicitation for, a transaction in any financial instruments; or unsolicited financial promotions to you.
Any third-party content, as well as content prepared by XM, such as: opinions, news, research, analyses, prices and other information or links to third-party sites contained on this website are provided on an “as-is” basis, as general market commentary, and do not constitute investment advice. To the extent that any content is construed as investment research, you must note and accept that the content was not intended to and has not been prepared in accordance with legal requirements designed to promote the independence of investment research and as such, it would be considered as marketing communication under the relevant laws and regulations. Please ensure that you have read and understood our Notification on Non-Independent Investment. Research and Risk Warning concerning the foregoing information, which can be accessed here.
