983 F.2d 1072 (7th Cir. 1992), 91-2739, D'Ambrosio v. Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers and Warehouse Workers Union (Independent) (CTDU)
|Citation:||983 F.2d 1072|
|Party Name:||Donald D'AMBROSIO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CHICAGO TRUCK DRIVERS, HELPERS AND WAREHOUSE WORKERS UNION (INDEPENDENT) ( "CTDU"), Defendant, APPEAL OF: PAUL L. GLOVER, Counsel for Defendant.|
|Case Date:||December 01, 1992|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Decided Dec. 28, 1992.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division, No. 89 C 6666; Joan Humphrey Lefkow, Magistrate Judge.
Before FLAUM, MANION and KANNE, Circuit Judges.
Paul L. Glover, the attorney representing the Chicago Truck Drivers, Helpers, and Warehouse Workers Union ("the union") in this action, appeals from the district court's imposition of sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We reverse.
Donald D'Ambrosio brought a wrongful discharge suit against the union in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois. His complaint alleged in the first count that the union fired him without just and sufficient cause and without following certain policies established by the "Office Policy for Union Employees", an employee handbook. In the second count D'Ambrosio alleged that his termination resulted from the union's "malicious and intentional actions" in violation of his contractual rights. The complaint states that D'Ambrosio was denied various health, welfare, and pension benefits and requests damages of $1.5 million.
Glover signed and filed a petition for removal asserting that the district court had original jurisdiction over the claim. According to the union, D'Ambrosio's complaint stated a claim under (1) Section 502 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 29 U.S.C. § 1132, and (2) Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 185. The district court granted the petition, which D'Ambrosio did not challenge, and denied the union's motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c), the parties then agreed to proceed before the magistrate judge. The union filed a second motion for summary judgment. In reviewing that motion, the magistrate judge determined that the union had improperly removed the case to federal court and ordered it to show cause why the district court should not remand the case to the Circuit Court of Cook...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP