Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co.

Decision Date22 August 2011
Docket NumberNo. 10–1759.,10–1759.
Citation191 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2581,649 F.3d 287
PartiesHarold DEWHURST; David Bryan, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,v.CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY; Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Incorporated; Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan; Does 1 through 20, Defendants–Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

649 F.3d 287
191 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2581

Harold DEWHURST; David Bryan, on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated; United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO/CLC, Plaintiffs–Appellants,
v.
CENTURY ALUMINUM COMPANY; Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Incorporated; Century Aluminum Master Welfare Benefit Plan; Does 1 through 20, Defendants–Appellees.

No. 10–1759.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Argued: May 13, 2011.Decided: Aug. 22, 2011.


[649 F.3d 289]

ARGUED: Joseph P. Stuligross, United Steelworkers of America, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. Shay Dvoretzky, Jones Day, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. ON BRIEF: William T. Payne, John Stember, Pamina Ewing, Stember Feinstein Doyle Payne & Cordes, LLC, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, for Appellants. Sarah McClure, Jones Day, Washington, D.C.; Stanley Weiner, Jones Day, Cleveland, Ohio; Ricklin Brown, Bowles Rice McDavid Graff & Love, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.Before WILKINSON, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by published opinion. Judge AGEE wrote the opinion, in which Judge WILKINSON and Judge KING joined.
OPINION
AGEE, Circuit Judge:

Arguing they are likely to succeed on the merits of their case, retirees and class representatives Harold Dewhurst and David Bryan, together with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL–CIO/CLC (collectively, “the Retirees”), appeal the denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction seeking continuation of certain healthcare benefits. Because the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying the preliminary injunction, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

I.

In 2007, Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc.,1 which then operated a plant in Ravenswood, West Virginia, began experiencing financial difficulty, which it attributed, in part, to escalating healthcare costs. In February 2009, Century curtailed operations at the plant and, later that year, announced its plan to modify or terminate retiree healthcare benefits for retirees aged sixty-five or older who retired between February 6, 1985 and June 1, 2006. Shortly thereafter the Retirees filed suit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, contending their benefits were vested and that Century's intended modification would violate both the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, and the Employee

[649 F.3d 290]

Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132(a)(1)(B) and (a)(3).

Following the December 2009 transfer of the case to the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, that court denied the Retirees' motion for a preliminary injunction, finding in a comprehensive order and opinion that the Retirees failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co., 731 F.Supp.2d 506 (S.D.W.Va.2010).

The Retirees now appeal, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).

II.
A.

We review the denial of a preliminary injunction for abuse of discretion. WV Ass'n. of Club Owners & Fraternal Servs., Inc. v. Musgrave, 553 F.3d 292, 298 (4th Cir.2009). Factual findings are reviewed for clear error; legal conclusions, de novo. Id. (citing E. Tenn. Natural Gas Co. v. Sage, 361 F.3d 808, 828 (4th Cir.2004)).

B.

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief.” Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 129 S.Ct. 365, 376, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). In Winter, the Supreme Court directed that a party “seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Id. at 374 (emphasis added).

We have noted that standard in several recent cases: “In order to receive a preliminary injunction, a plaintiff ‘must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.’ ” Musgrave, 553 F.3d at 298 (quoting Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 374). See also Scott v. Bierman, No. 10–1483, 429 Fed.Appx. 225, 228–29, 2011 WL 1807330, at *3 (4th Cir. May 12, 2011); Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 575 F.3d 342, 345–47 (4th Cir.2009) vacated by ––– U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 2371, 176 L.Ed.2d 764 (2010), reinstated in part by 607 F.3d 355 (4th Cir.2010). Winter thus requires that a party seeking a preliminary injunction, like the Retirees, must “clear[ly] show[ ]” that it is likely to succeed on the merits. Winter, 129 S.Ct. at 376.2

III.

We note before beginning our analysis that the district court made a meticulous summary of the relevant collective bargaining agreements (“CBAs”) and we include a portion below regarding the last CBA which is illustrative of earlier agreements:

Similar to those SPDs preceding it, the 2006 SPD sets forth its reach at the outset, making its terms applicable

[649 F.3d 291]

to Ravenswood Reduction Plant retirees and surviving spouses who retired or commenced receiving a surviving spouse pension from Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. The Century Aluminum of West Virginia, Inc. Hourly Employees' Pension Plan on or after June 1, 2006....

This Plan has been established pursuant to Article 15 of the Labor Agreement dated June 1, 2006,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
270 cases
  • Casa De Md., Inc. v. Wolf
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 11 Septiembre 2020
    ...a preliminary injunctive is warranted only upon "a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to relief." Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co. , 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011) (quoting Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council , 555 U.S. 7, 22, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ) (internal q......
  • Sarsour v. Trump
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Virginia
    • 24 Marzo 2017
    ...party seeking a preliminary injunction...must clearly show that it is likely to succeed on the merits."6 Dewhurst v. Century Alum. Co. , 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). The "requirement...is far stricter than... [a] requirement that the plaintiff demonstrate only a grave or serious quest......
  • Coreas v. Bounds
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 3 Abril 2020
    ...interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ; see Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co. , 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). A moving party must satisfy each requirement as articulated. Pashby v. Delia , 709 F.3d 307, 320-21 (4th Cir. ......
  • Int'l Refugee Assistance Project v. Trump, Civil Action No. TDC–17–0361
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Maryland
    • 17 Octubre 2017
    ...interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc. , 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ; see Dewhurst v. Century Aluminum Co. , 649 F.3d 287, 290 (4th Cir. 2011). A moving party must satisfy each requirement as articulated. Real Truth About Obama, Inc. v. Fed. Election Com......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT