Farmer v. Am. Fed'n of Gov't Emps.
| Decision Date | 29 May 2020 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No.: 19-1631 (RC),Civil Action No.: 19-1830 (RC) |
| Parties | AVIS FARMER, Plaintiff, v. AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, Defendant. SUNTRUST BANK, Plaintiff, v. CHARLES HENDERSON, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Two closely related but unconsolidated cases are presently before the Court. In the primary action, the American Federation of Government Employees ("AFGE" or "the Union") moves to dismiss a complaint brought by Ms. Avis Farmer, a former officer of AFGE Local 2607 ("the Local"). This complaint was one of three that Farmer originally brought against AFGE following a consolidation of locals representing certain U.S. Department of Education employees into a single nationwide local. Farmer alleged in these related complaints that AFGE forced members to pay union dues to the new local, improperly attempted to seize the Local's funds, and put in jeopardy a settlement agreement from a previous lawsuit. Of the three original complaints, two have been voluntarily dismissed. AFGE now moves to dismiss the remaining suit for lack of jurisdiction, arguing that Plaintiff's claim arises from her membership in a federal sector labor union and is therefore preempted by Title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act, also referred to as the Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute ("FSLMRS"), 5 U.SC. § 7101 et seq.
Separately, the current possessor of the $212,663.23 in disputed union funds, SunTrust Bank, filed an interpleader action naming three defendants: Ms. Farmer, Dr. Charles Henderson (the former president of the Local), and AFGE itself. As part of that action, AFGE filed a cross-claim against Farmer and Henderson, seeking a declaration that the funds rightfully belonged to the Union. Farmer and Henderson did not answer or otherwise respond to the Union's cross-claim, and the Clerk entered default against them. Now pending before the Court is a motion by Ms. Farmer and Dr. Henderson,1 which seeks to set aside that entry of default. Also pending in the interpleader action is a combined motion by SunTrust, in which the bank (1) seeks leave to deposit the disputed funds into the registry of the Court; (2) moves to be dismissed from the case; and (3) requests recoupment of its attorneys' fees and costs.
For the reasons set forth below, in the primary action, the Court denies AFGE's motion to dismiss the complaint. In the interpleader action, the Court grants Farmer and Henderson's motion to set aside the entry of default and SunTrust's combined motion.
On May 2, 2019, AFGE Headquarters issued a letter to AFGE Local 2607 stating that the local was "terminated, effective immediately." Compl. at 1 ("Farmer Compl."), No. 19-cv-1631, ECF No. 1-1 at 4. On May 14, 2019, Farmer filed three pro se complaints against AFGE.2 On June 4, 2019, AFGE removed all three actions to this Court on the ground that the claims were preempted by federal law. See Notice of Removal at 2, No. 19-cv-1631, ECF No. 1. Subsequently, Farmer filed motions to dismiss two of the removed cases, which the Court granted. Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Dismiss, No. 19-cv-1634, ECF No. 15; Order Granting Pl.'s Mot. Dismiss, No. 19-cv-1635, ECF No. 14.
In the remaining case (No. 19-cv-1631, which originated as Superior Court Case No. 2019 CA 003179B), Farmer appears to allege that AFGE tried to seize funds from the Local without properly revoking its charter or disbanding it. Farmer Compl. at 1 (). The implication seems to be that this action violated AFGE's own constitution. See id. (citing AFGE National Constitution, Art. XIX, § 6). The complaint suggests that the Local was singled out for thistreatment because of its healthy finances. Id. at 2 (). The complaint also refers to AFGE's alleged poor stewardship of union funds, its substantial debt, and history of misappropriation of funds. Id. As for relief, Farmer prays that "funds of local 2607 remain in tack [sic] for the members of Local 2607 and not COMINGLED with funds of other locals." Id. at 1. She further prays that the fees paid by former Local 2607 members—at least those in excess of the per capita dues required by the AFGE constitution—be "held in place for the membership's distribution in participation in AFGE training and events." Id.
According to the SunTrust's interpleader complaint, AFGE sent a letter on May 2, 2019 to SunTrust Bank,3 holder of the Local's funds, claiming that the Local had been disbanded, requesting the closure of all of the Local's accounts, and instructing SunTrust to issue a check to AFGE for any funds in those accounts. Compl. for Interpleader ¶ 15, No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 1. SunTrust's complaint explains that Henderson and Farmer, who had signature authority on or opened those accounts, also sent a letter to SunTrust, requesting that any funds held in the Local's accounts not be turned over to anyone except them. Id. ¶¶ 14, 16. Facing these conflicting claims, SunTrust filed an interpleader action under 28 U.S.C. § 1335, naming Farmer, Henderson, and AFGE as defendants. Id. ¶¶ 1-9.
In its answer to SunTrust's interpleader action, AFGE included both counterclaims and cross-claims. Its counterclaim against SunTrust alleged that the bank breached its fiduciary dutyto AFGE "because AFGE is the sole owner of the accounts and funds that were maintained by the now disbanded Local 2607." AFGE's Answer, Countercl., and Cross-cl. ("AFGE Answer") ¶ 51, No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 7. That counterclaim against SunTrust was voluntarily dismissed and is therefore no longer before the Court. See Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 21.4 AFGE's cross-claim against Farmer and Henderson, however, remained pending. It alleged that the pair had "lost all authority to act for or on behalf of Local 2607 after it was disbanded," AFGE Answer ¶ 59, and prays for the Court to "declare AFGE the sole owner of the disputed funds," id. ¶ 62. Farmer and Henderson filed a timely answer to SunTrust's interpleader complaint, but they never responded to AFGE's cross-claim. As a result, the Clerk of Court entered default against Farmer and Henderson. Clerk's Entry of Default, No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 15. Farmer and Henderson now move to set aside the default entry. Mot. to Set Aside Entry of Default, No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 16. SunTrust moves separately for leave to deposit the disputed funds into the registry of the Court, be dismissed from the case, and for attorneys' fees and costs to be subtracted from the disputed funds before the funds are deposited into the registry of the Court. See Mot. to Interplead Deposit, Dismissal of SunTrust Bank, and for Att'y Fees and Costs ("Combined Mot."), No. 19-cv-1830, ECF No. 22.
When it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, a court must dismiss a case pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1). Federal courts are courts of limited subject matter jurisdiction, and the law presumes that "a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am.,511 U.S. 375, 377, (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (). To survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that a court has jurisdiction over her claim. See Moms Against Mercury v. Food & Drug Admin., 483 F.3d 824, 828 (D.C. Cir. 2007); see also Am. Farm Bureau v. EPA, 121 F. Supp. 2d 84, 90 (D.D.C. 2000) (). In determining whether jurisdiction exists, a court may "undertake an independent investigation to assure itself of its own subject matter jurisdiction" and "consider facts developed in the record beyond the complaint." CFA Inst. v. Andre, 74 F. Supp. 3d 462, 465 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting in part Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm'n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1107-08 (D.C. Cir. 2005)).
A pro se complaint, additionally, is held to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)). For example, in evaluating a motion to dismiss a pro se complaint, a district court must consider all the relevant filings, including the plaintiff's opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) () (quoting Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). But even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). Moreover, "[a] pro se complaint, like any other, must present a claim upon which relief can be granted." Crisafi v. Holland, 655 F.2d 1305, 1308 (D.C. Cir. 1981). If there is nojurisdictional basis for the cause of action in this Court, the complaint must be dismissed. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial