Haw. Reg'l Council of Carpenters v. Yoshimura

• Decision Date: 16 February 2017
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 16–00198 ACK–KSC
• Citation: 237 F.Supp.3d 1029
• Parties: HAWAII REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, Plaintiffs, v. Lance YOSHIMURA, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii

237 F.Supp.3d 1029

HAWAII REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745, Plaintiffs,

v.Lance YOSHIMURA, Defendant.

Civ. No. 16–00198 ACK–KSC

United States District Court, D. Hawai‘i.

Signed February 16, 2017

Daniel M. Shanley, Desmond C. Lee, Decarlo & Shanley, Los Angeles, CA, Jessica M. Wan, Kurt W. Klein, Marguerite Sandra Nozaki Fujie, Robert G. Klein, McCorriston Miller Mukai MacKinnon LLP, Honolulu, HI, for Plaintiffs.

James J. Wade, John F. Perkin, Perkin and Faria LLLC, Richard E. Wilson, Law Offices of Richard E. Wilson LLC, Honolulu, HI, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS HAWAII REGIONAL COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS AND UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL 745'S MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Alan C. Kay, Senior United States District Judge

For the reasons discussed below, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 36.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters ("HRCC") and United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 745 ("Local 745") (collectively, "Plaintiffs") argue that Lance Yoshimura ("Yoshimura" or "Defendant") breached his fiduciary duties under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 ("LMRDA") in relation to his recording of union meetings and taking of union property. The parties do not dispute the facts discussed below.

I. Recording of Union Meetings

A. Recording of Local 745 Meetings

Yoshimura was Local 745's Recording Secretary. Pls.' Concise Statement of Facts ("CSF") 3, Chang Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2. Pursuant to Local 745's Bylaws, its Executive Committee is responsible for promoting Local 745's general welfare. Pls.' CSF 2, Chang Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 1, § 21. Also pursuant to the Bylaws, the Recording Secretary is an officer of Local 745. Chang Decl., Ex. 1, § 18. On March 24, 2014, Local 745's Executive Committee held a meeting. Pls.' CSF 1, Chang Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2. As Recording Secretary, Yoshimura was responsible for keeping minutes and attended the March 24, 2014 meeting in this capacity. Pls.' CSF 3, Chang Decl. ¶ 4, Ex. 2.

During the March 24, 2014 meeting, the Executive Committee passed two resolutions "re-affirming" Local 745's "existing policy that there shall be no recording, whether by tape, digital or video, of any Unit meeting of members," including the Executive Committee meetings. Pls.' CSF 4, Chang Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, Ex. 2, Attachments 1 & 2.¹ The resolutions passed without opposition. Pls.'s CSF 5, Chang Decl. ¶¶ 4–5, Ex. 2, at 3. Yoshimura did not oppose the resolutions. Pls.' CSF 6, Chang Decl. ¶ 8. Yoshimura was secretly recording the meeting and continued to record the meeting even after the resolutions were passed. Pls.' CSF 7, Chang Decl. ¶ 9; Shanley Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10.

The resolutions were announced at Local 745's membership meeting which was held later in the day on March 24, 2014. Pls.' CSF 8, Chang Decl. ¶ 6. Yoshimura recorded the membership meeting despite the resolutions. Pls.' CSF 10.² Yoshimura recorded the next two Local 745 unit meetings on April 2 and 3, 2014. Pls.' CSF 11, Taketa Decl. ¶¶ 11–12, Shanley Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10.

Prior to the passing of the resolutions, Yoshimura had previously recorded Local 745's unit meeting on March 12, 2014. Pls.' CSF 12, Taketa Decl. ¶ 9, Shanley Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10. At this meeting, an instruction was given that recording meetings was prohibited. Pls.' CSF 13, Shanley Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10.

B. Recording of HRCC Executive Committee Meeting

On March 24, 2014, HRCC held a meeting of its Executive Committee. Pls.' CSF 15, Taketa Decl. ¶ 5, Taketa Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 4. Yoshimura attended the meeting in his capacity as Vice President of HRCC. Pls.' CSF 17, Taketa Decl. ¶ 5, Taketa Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 4. Yoshimura also attended the meeting as a delegate of Local 745 representing the local union to the HRCC. Pls.' CSF 18, Taketa Decl. ¶ 5. HRCC's Bylaws state that "the Local Unions in the vicinity of Hawaii affiliate ourselves into an organization that shall be known as the" HRCC. Taketa Decl. Ex. 3, at 1.

At the March 24, 2014 meeting, the Executive Committee passed a resolution³ prohibiting "recording, whether by tape, digital or video" of HRCC meetings including Executive Committee meetings. Pls.' CSF 19, Taketa Decl. ¶ 5, Taketa Decl. ¶ 6, Ex. 4, at 2. Yoshimura did not oppose the resolution. Pls.' CSF 21, Taketa Decl. ¶¶ 7, 10. Yoshimura digitally recorded the HRCC Executive Committee meeting. Pls.' CSF 22, Taketa Decl. ¶ 10, Shanley Decl. ¶ 3, Ex. 10.

II. Possession of Union Records

HRCC terminated Yoshimura from his employment on March 7, 2014.⁴ Pls.' CSF 24, Taketa Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 5. The termination notice asked that Yoshimura "turn over all ... property belonging to" HRCC. Pls.' CSF 25, Taketa Decl. ¶ 13, Ex. 5.

Notwithstanding, Yoshimura kept at least two documents that he had obtained through his employment with HRCC. Pls.' CSF 27, Taketa Decl. ¶¶ 15–19. The first document, dated June 25, 2013,⁵ was a computer printout of HRCC's Executive Secretary–Treasurer Ronald Taketa's union records, which included his home address and social security number. Pls.' CSF 28, Taketa Decl. ¶ 16, Ex. 6. The second was a computer printout of the payroll information for HRCC employee Kyle Chock, which contained his address and social security number as well as information about his salary. Pls.' CSF 29, Taketa Decl. ¶ 18, Ex. 8. Taketa's Declaration provides that "Yoshimura did not have the right or legitimate purpose to obtain these documents." Taketa Decl. ¶ 20.

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Prior to the filing of the instant suit, on July 21, 2015, Yoshimura filed a complaint against "Hawaii Carpenters Union Local 745, nka the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters" (the "Union") and Ronald Taketa in the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii asserting claims related to his termination from the Union ("State Court Action"). Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Shanley Decl. Ex. 1 ("State Court Complaint"), ECF No. 23–2 (capitalization omitted). Yoshimura alleged that from 2000 until March 7, 2014, he was an employee of the Union. Id. ¶¶ 6, 19. According to the State Court Complaint, in preparation for an upcoming audit, the Union sought to falsify time records to cover up its failure to keep accurate and complete records. Id. ¶ 8. Yoshimura was instructed to inform Union business representatives to create false time records. Id. ¶ 9. Yoshimura claimed that he repeatedly objected to the Union's scheme and eventually filed complaints with both the Department of Labor and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Id. ¶¶ 9, 12, 15, 18. In retaliation, according to Yoshimura, the Union terminated his employment. Id. ¶ 19.

The Union removed the action to this district court arguing that the claims were preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"). Lance Yoshimura v. Hawaii Carpenters Union Local 745 nka the Hawaii Regional Council of Carpenters, et al. , Civ. No. 15–00292 HG–RLP, 2015 WL 6126805 (D.Hawai'i Oct 15, 2015), ECF No. 1. The Union also filed in this district court a counterclaim for violation of § 501(a) of the LMRDA alleging that Yoshimura breached his fiduciary duty to the Union by causing dissension, trying to divide the staff for his own interests, and falsely accusing the Union of stealing assets for his own personal gain ("Counterclaim"). Memorandum in Opposition to Motion to Dismiss, Shanley Decl. Ex. 2 (Counterclaim) ¶ 22, ECF No. 23–3.

This district court determined that ERISA did not preempt Yoshimura's claims and, accordingly, that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction. Motion to Dismiss, Ex. 1 (Order Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint and Remanding Proceedings to the Circuit Court of the First Circuit, State of Hawaii), at 20, ECF No. 12–2. The court held that the Counterclaim could not serve as a basis for the court's federal question jurisdiction and, accordingly, remanded the case on October 15, 2015. Id. at 19–21.

On April 26, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant case against Yoshimura. Compl., ECF No. 1. The Complaint includes two causes of action: 1) Breach of Fiduciary Duties under the LMRDA ( 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) ) related to Yoshimura's alleged theft of union and membership records, secret audio recordings of confidential conversations, and breach of confidential agreements, id. ¶¶ 27, 28, 34–35; and 2) Violation of the Federal Wiretap Statute, ( 18 U.S.C. § 2510, et seq. ), in relation to allegations of secret audio recordings of confidential conversations, id. ¶¶ 40–43.

On June 9, 2016, Yoshimura filed a Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court denied the Motion to Dismiss finding that Plaintiffs' claims in the instant suit were not compulsory counterclaims to the State Court Action; and that the Complaint's wiretap claim was sufficiently pled. Order Denying Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint or in the Alternative for Judgment on the Pleadings, ECF No. 26, at 17–19, 21–23.

On November 14, 2016, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion for Partial Summary Judgment along with a Concise Statement of Facts. ECF Nos. 36–37. On January 13, 2017, Defendant filed an Opposition along with a Concise Statement in Opposition to Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. ECF Nos. 47–48. Defendant's Concise Statement in Opposition admits the entirety of Plaintiffs' Concise Statement of Facts. ECF No. 48. Plaintiffs filed their Reply on January 23, 2017. ECF No. 53.

The Court held a hearing on the Motion on February 6, 2017.

STANDARD

Summary judgment is proper where there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Rule 56(a) mandates summary judgment "against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient...