Price v. United Airlines, Inc., et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Judge Charlotte N. Sweeney
Civil Action No. 1:25-cv-00813-CNS-TPO
MICHAEL DAVID PRICE,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED AIRLINES, INC.,
LYSSA LATU,
PAULA REPPAS,
DAVID BAUDIER,
ANASTASIA HOSACK,
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
BRIAN BRYANT,
MIKE KLEMM, and
WILLIAM STEF,
Defendants.
ORDER
Before the Court is the Recommendation, ECF No. 73, by United States Magistrate
Judge Timothy P. O’Hara issued on February 17, 2026, recommending that the Union
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 41, and the United Defendants’ Motion to
Dismiss, ECF No. 43, be GRANTED, and that the United Defendants’ Motions for
Sanctions, ECF No. 49, be DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. For the following reasons,
the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Recommendation.
Case No. 1:25-cv-00813-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 03/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 1 of 3

2
The parties were advised that they had fourteen days, after being served with a
copy of the Recommendation, to file written objections in order to obtain reconsideration
by the District Judge assigned to the case. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Neither party has
filed an objection to Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), this Court may designate a magistrate judge to
consider dispositive motions 	and submit recommendations to the 	Court. When a
magistrate judge submits a recommendation, the Court must “determine de novo any part
of the magistrate judge’s [recommended] disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A party’s failure to file such written objections may bar the party
from a de novo determination by the District Judge of the proposed findings and
recommendations. 	Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 	When this occurs, the
Court is “accorded considerable discretion” and “may review a magistrate’s report under
any standard it deems appropriate.” 	Summers v. State of Utah, 927 F.2d 1165, 1167
(10th Cir. 1991) (citing Thomas, 474 U.S. at 150).
After reviewing all the relevant pleadings, the Court concludes that Magistrate
Judge O’Hara’s analyses were thorough and comprehensive, the Recommendation is
well-reasoned, and the Court finds no clear error on the face of the record. Accordingly,
the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge O’Hara’s Recommendation as an
order of this Court. See ECF No. 73. The Union Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No.
41, is GRANTED. All claims against Defendant International Association of Machinists
and Aerospace Workers are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and all claims against
the individual Union Defendants (Brian Bryant, Mike Klemm, and Willam Stef) are
Case No. 1:25-cv-00813-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 03/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 2 of 3

3
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The United Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 43,
is GRANTED. All claims against the United Defendants (United Airlines, Inc., Lyssa Latu,
Paula Reppas, David Baudier, and Anastasia Hosack) are DISMISSED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE. The United Defendants’ Motions for Sanctions, ECF No. 49, is DENIED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
DATED this 12th day of March 2026.
BY THE COURT:
________________________________
Charlotte N. Sweeney
United States District Judge
Case No. 1:25-cv-00813-CNS-TPO Document 74 filed 03/12/26 USDC Colorado
pg 3 of 3