Addison v. GRAND LODGE OF INTERNAT'L ASS'N OF MACHINISTS

• Citation: 318 F.2d 504
• Decision Date: 11 June 1963
• Docket Number: No. 18189.,18189.
• Parties: Joe ADDISON, Appellant, v. The GRAND LODGE OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated international labor organization, Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727, a California unincorporated local labor organization, et al., Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

318 F.2d 504 (1963)

Joe ADDISON, Appellant, v. The GRAND LODGE OF the INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS, an unincorporated international labor organization, Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727, a California unincorporated local labor organization, et al., Appellees.

No. 18189.

United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.

June 11, 1963.

Daniel A. Schiffer and Rudolph Pacht, North Hollywood, Cal., for appellant.

Mulholland, Robie & Hickey, Edward J. Hickey, Jr., and James L. Highsaw, Jr., Washington, D. C., Rose, Klein & Marias and Alfred M. Klein, Los Angeles, Cal., and Plato E. Papps, Washington, D. C., for appellees.

Before BARNES and JERTBERG, Circuit Judges, and BURKE, District Judge.

JERTBERG, Circuit Judge.

In an earlier appeal by appellant, this Court reversed the judgment of the District Court dismissing the action for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter embraced in the complaint. See Addison v. Grand Lodge of International Association of Machinists, et al., 300 F.2d 863 (9th Cir., 1962).

On remand the District Court placed the cause on the calendar for hearing and dismissal pursuant to Rule 16(6) and 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and Local Rule 10. Appellees, pursuant to Rule 12(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, moved the District Court for an order dismissing the complaint or in the alternative pursuant to Rule 56(b) and (c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, for an order granting summary judgment in favor of appellees. The motion was supported by the affidavit of Elmer E. Walker, an appellee and general secretary-treasurer of the Grand Lodge of International Association of Machinists, also an appellee, to which affidavit were attached many exhibits, and the affidavit of George Christensen, an appellee, Staff Attorney of the I.A.M. Appellant opposed the motion by a statement in opposition thereto supported by the affidavit of appellant and the affidavit of Roy M. Brown, a former general vice-president of the Grand Lodge. A hearing on the motion was held before the District Court at which time there was offered and received in evidence by appellees, without objection by the appellant, as further exhibits to the affidavit of Walker, the full transcript of the trial proceedings against appellant (Snider v. Addison) which culminated in his expulsion, plus a transcript of the proceedings of appellant against Snider, an appellee (Addison v. Snider), and a complete copy of the proceedings against appellant had at the Quadrennial Convention of the Grand Lodge.

Following the hearing the District Court granted appellees' motion for summary judgment in respect to Counts 1 and 2, dismissing on the merits the causes of action therein asserted, dismissed Counts 3 and 4 for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter therein asserted, and dismissed Count 5 for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter therein asserted. The judgment provides that the dismissal of Counts 3, 4 and 5 shall not constitute an adjudication upon the merits of the causes of action therein asserted.

The findings of fact of the District Court are as follows:

"1. At all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, and, at all times prior thereto referred to in the complaint, plaintiff was not deprived of any statutory rights guaranteed him, enumerated in or protected by Title I, Sections 101(a) (2) or (5) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (hereinafter referred to as LMRDA) Public Law 86-257, 29 U.S.C.A. Sections 401 et seq. (Suppl.1960).

"2. The acts alleged in the complaint leading to the internal union trial proceedings conducted by the defendants, which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, antedated and took place prior to September 14, 1959, the effective date of Title I of the LMRDA.

"3. In and at all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was made fully aware of and served with written clear and specific charges filed against him, in compliance with Section 101(a) (5) (A) of the LMRDA.

"4. In and at all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was given a reasonable time and opportunity to prepare his defense, in compliance with Section 101(a) (5) (B) of the LMRDA.

"5. In and at all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was afforded a full and fair hearing and provided the fundamentals of due process, in compliance with Section 101(a) (5) (C) of the LMRDA.

"6. At all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was given a fair, unbiased and impartial hearing, provided the fundamentals of due process and, as well, afforded all safeguards and rights provided in the Constitution of the defendant Grand Lodge of the International Association of Machinists; and said internal union trial and appeals proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of said Constitution.

"7. At all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was afforded all safeguards and rights provided in the Constitution and By-Laws of the defendant Aeronautical Industrial District Lodge 727; and said internal union trial and appeals proceedings were conducted in accordance with the applicable terms and conditions of said Constitution and By-Laws.

"8. In and at all times during the internal union trial and appeals proceedings conducted by the defendants which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was afforded all safeguards and rights provided by Federal law.

"9. The Fry Audit (¶ 31 of Complaint) and documentation in support thereof (¶s 34 and 37, and Exhibits A and B to Complaint) and any alleged embezzlement, misappropriation or misapplication of union funds by defendants antedated and took place prior to September 14, 1959, the effective date of Title V of the LMRDA.

"10. Plaintiff\'s expulsion by defendants from membership in defendant unions was not wrongful, unlawful, null or void.

"11. Plaintiff is not entitled to the return to him of a $500.00 fine imposed by the defendant Grand Lodge of the International Association of Machinists as a part of his expulsion punishment.

"12. Counts 3 and 4 of the complaint, allegedly arising out of the common laws of the State of California and within the pendent jurisdiction of this court, cannot be maintained in this court since they present no Federal question and are not joined with any substantial and related Federal claims, and there is absent complete diversity of citizenship between the plaintiff and each and every defendant.

"13. In the conduct by the defendants of the internal union trial and appeals proceedings which resulted in the expulsion of plaintiff, he was not wrongfully deprived by defendants, or any of them, of any contract or property rights under Federal law as a member in the defendant unions.

"14. Plaintiff did not obtain leave of this court upon verified application and for good cause shown, prior to bringing the instant action, or any time thereafter, as required by Section 501(b) of the LMRDA."

From the foregoing facts the District Court concluded, among other conclusions, that "there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact alleged in plaintiff's complaint or any count thereof."

In our earlier opinion (supra) in this case, we set forth the relevant provisions of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, Title 29 U.S.C.A.,...