Jump To

Top Caption Trial Court Document The text of this document was obtained by analyzing a scanned document and may have typos.

Support FLP

CourtListener is a project of Free
Law Project, a federally-recognized 501(c)(3) non-profit. Members help support our work and get special access to features.

Please become a member today.

Join Free.law Now

March 12, 2026 Get Citation Alerts Download PDF Add Note

Michael David Price 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

District Court, D. Colorado

• Citations: None known
• Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00813

• Precedential Status: Unknown Status

• Opinion

• Authorities (2)

• Cited By (0)

• Summaries (0)

• Similar Cases (0)

• PDF

Trial Court Document

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.

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
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 TH ry,

                                 Charlotte  ¥Y-Sweeney 
                                 United S      District  Judge