Debeikes v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.

• Decision Date: 28 October 2015
• Docket Number: Civil No. 13-00504 ACK-RLP
• Citation: 141 F.Supp.3d 1075
• Parties: Matthew J. Debeikes, Plaintiff, v. Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

141 F.Supp.3d 1075

Matthew J. Debeikes, Plaintiff,

v.Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. and Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, Defendants.

Civil No. 13-00504 ACK-RLP

United States District Court, D. Hawai'i.

Signed October 28, 2015

Shawn A. Luiz, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiff.

Anna M. Elento-Sneed, Trisha C. Gibo, ES & A, Inc., Louise K.Y. Ing, John S. Rhee, Alston Hunt Floyd & Ing, Ashley K. Ikeda, Stephanie L. Marn, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Honolulu, HI, John H. Morse, Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, Washington, DC, for Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO THE MOTIONS TO DISMISS OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OF DEFENDANTS HAWAIIAN AIRLINES, INC. AND ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS-CWA, AFL-CIO

Alan C. Kay

, Senior United States District Judge

For the reasons set forth below, the Court GRANTS summary judgment in response to Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc.'s Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Grant Summary Judgment, ECF No. 85, the Joinder thereto of Defendant Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO, ECF No. 90, Defendant Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO's Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment, ECF No. 94, and the Joinder thereto of Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc., ECF No. 99.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On October 3, 2013, Plaintiff Matthew J. Debeikes ("Debeikes" or "Plaintiff") filed a complaint against Defendant Hawaiian Airlines, Inc. ("Hawaiian Airlines") and Defendant Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIO ("AFA") (collectively, "Defendants"). Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint alleged that Defendants forced Plaintiff into early retirement on May 29, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 9, 14, ECF No. 1. Specifically, the Complaint contended that Hawaiian Airlines violated the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") governing the terms and conditions of Debeikes' employment with the company, and that AFA breached its duty to fairly represent Plaintiff as one of its bargaining unit members.¹ Id. ¶¶ 11, 12.

On October 30, 2014, both Defendants moved for summary judgment. AFA filed a Motion for Summary Judgment ("MSJ") as to Plaintiff's claim that it breached the union's DFR, ECF No. 51, and Hawaiian Airlines filed a MSJ as to all of Plaintiff's claims, ECF No. 54.

On February 17, 2015, the Court granted Defendants' MSJs as to all of Plaintiff's claims. ECF No. 75. In the Order, the Court concluded that none of Plaintiff's claims, as presented in the Complaint, was viable. First, the Court found that Plaintiff's allegations of "constructive discharge," related to Hawaiian Airlines' "refus[al] to abide by the CBA," were preempted by his breach of CBA claim. In addition, the Court found that the claim of constructive discharge was unsupported on the merits. See Order at 26-30, ECF No. 75. Second, the Court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff's breach of CBA claim against Hawaiian Airlines, given that Debeikes had retired and filed suit without exhausting the CBA's grievance procedures. See id. at 39. Third, the Court concluded that it must dismiss Plaintiff's breach of DFR claim against AFA because his breach of CBA claim was not viable, consistent with Bliesner v. Commc'n Workers of Am. , 464 F.3d 910, 913 (9th Cir.2006)

. See

id. In the alternative, the Court also concluded that none of Plaintiff's factual allegations stated a viable breach of DFR claim. See

id. at 40–63.

The Order dismissed Plaintiff's claims without prejudice and granted Debeikes 30-days' leave to file an Amended Complaint. Id. at 64. On March 11, 2015, Debeikes filed his First Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl."), again purporting to bring a hybrid § 301/fair representation claim against AFA and Hawaiian Airlines while also claiming "constructive discharge."² Am. Compl. ¶¶ 8-14, ECF No. 80.

On March 25, 2015, Hawaiian Airlines filed its Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, Grant Summary Judgment ("Hawaiian Airlines' MTD/MSJ"), ECF No. 85, accompanied by a Concise Statement of Facts ("Hawaiian Airlines' CSF"), ECF No. 86.³ AFA filed a Joinder to Hawaiian Airlines' MTD/MSJ on March 31, 2015. ECF No. 90. On March 31, 2015, the parties also attended a Final Pretrial Conference with Magistrate Judge Puglisi. As memorialized in the conference minutes, the Court set a continued trial date, and Plaintiff requested to re-open discovery. He was expressly "advised to file [a] Motion for Additional Discovery." Minutes of Conf. of Mar. 31, 2015, ECF No. 91. Plaintiff did not, however, proceed to file such a motion.

On April 14, 2015, AFA also filed its own Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment ("AFA's MTD/MSJ"), ECF No. 94, accompanied by a Concise Statement of Facts ("AFA's CSF"), ECF No. 95. Hawaiian Airlines filed a Joinder to AFA's MTD/MSJ on May 7, 2015. ECF No. 99.

On May 7, 2015, Plaintiff filed an Opposition to AFA's MTD/MSJ, ECF No. 103, and a Concise Statement in Opposition to AFA's MTD/MSJ ("Plf.'s CSF—AFA"), ECF No. 105. On the same day, Plaintiff also filed an Opposition to Hawaiian Airlines' MTD/MSJ, ECF No. 102, and a Concise Statement in Opposition to Hawaiian Airlines' MTD/MSJ ("Plf.'s CSF—Hawaiian Airlines"), ECF No. 104. Neither of Plaintiff's Oppositions raised any issue related to discovery. On May 14, 2015, AFA filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of MTD/MSJ ("AFA Reply"), ECF No. 108, and Hawaiian Airlines filed a Reply Memorandum in Support of MTD/MSJ, ECF No. 110 ("Hawaiian Airlines Reply"), ECF No. 110. Hawaiian Airlines' MTD/MSJ and AFA's MTD/MSJ were set for a consolidated hearing on May 28, 2015. See Notices of Hearing on Motions, ECF Nos. 93, 96.

On May 11, 2015, the Court issued a Minute Order observing that Defendants' MTD/MSJs were filed after the dispositive motions deadline had passed.⁴ The parties were therefore "encouraged to stipulate to an extension of the dispositive motions deadline." If such an agreement was not possible, the parties were "directed to seek a conference regarding such extension with Judge Puglisi prior to the hearing scheduled for May 28, 2015 on Defendants' motions." ECF No. 107.

The parties did not reach an agreement as to a stipulation to extend the dispositive motions deadline. Instead, the parties attended a telephonic status conference with Magistrate Judge Puglisi on May 27, 2015, after which the Court issued an order extending the dispositive motions deadline, nunc pro tunc , to April 15, 2015. This allowed Defendants' motions to be considered timely. Minutes of Conf. of May 27, 2015, ECF No. 116. The Court's Minutes also reflect that Plaintiff's counsel raised at the May 27, 2015 status conference that "he would like to depose the declarants who submitted declarations in support of the Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment." Id.

Plaintiff's counsel raised the same request the next day at the Court's scheduled hearing on Defendants' summary judgment motions. He made an oral motion to continue the hearing and read the minutes of the May 27, 2015 conference into the record. The Court granted Plaintiff's oral motion to continue the hearing, in order to allow Plaintiff time to file a written motion to reopen discovery. See Minutes of Hearing of May 28, 2015, ECF No. 117.

Plaintiff filed his Motion to Reopen Discovery on June 16, 2015. ECF No. 121. Magistrate Judge Puglisi denied Plaintiff's motion in its entirety on July 17, 2015, for the reasons explained in his Order Denying Plaintiff Matthew J. Debeikes' Motion to Reopen Discovery. ECF No. 126. Plaintiff appealed Magistrate Judge Puglisi's order on July 27, 2015, ECF No. 127, and the Court set a hearing on Plaintiff's appeal for September 3, 2015, ECF No. 130.⁵

The Court denied Plaintiff's appeal on October 9, 2015, for the reasons set forth at length in its Order Affirming the Magistrate Judge's Order Denying Plaintiff Matthew J. Debeikes' Motion to Reopen Discovery. ECF No. 139. The Court subsequently heard oral arguments on Defendants' MTD/MSJs on October 22, 2015.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

As a preliminary matter, the Court will consider documents outside the pleadings in resolving the instant motions. If matters outside the pleadings are presented to and not excluded by the Court on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure ("Rule") 12(b)(6)

, the motion is treated as one for summary judgment under Rule 56, and "[a]ll parties must be given a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d). Where, as here, a movant expressly styles a motion as requesting dismissal or summary judgment in the alternative, a nonmovant is considered to have been "fairly apprised that the district court may look beyond the pleadings." Morrow v. City of Glendale , No. 92–56286, slip op. at *1, 1994 WL 87206 (9th Cir. Mar. 17, 1994).

Additionally, the Court will incorporate below the relevant factual findings set forth in its prior Order. See, e.g. , Illinois Nat'l Ins. Co., Inc. v. Nordic PLC Constr., Inc. , Civ. No. 11–00515 SOM–KSC, 2013 WL 3975668 *1 n. 1 (D.Haw. July 31, 2013)

(resolving summary judgment motion by "incorporat [ing] the facts and procedural history set forth in its prior orders by reference" and "repeat[ing] only the most salient details"); Wapato Heritage, LLC v. U.S. , No. CV–08–177–RHW, 2009 WL 3782869 *1 (E.D.Wash. Nov. 6, 2009) ("The Court incorporates by reference herein the facts set forth in its prior summary judgment order."). Facts determined on the basis of the instant briefing are integrated below with the Court's recitation of its relevant prior factual findings.⁶

Plaintiff was employed as a flight attendant by Hawaiian Airlines from July 9, 1986 to May 29, 2013, during which time he was a member of AFA. Order at 3, ECF No. 75. During the period of Debeikes' employment, a CBA between AFA and Hawaiian Airlines covered the terms and conditions of employment for flight attendants. Hawaiian Airlines maintained a set of "House Rules"...