Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Verso Corp.

• Decision Date: 03 August 2015
• Docket Number: No. 1:14–cv–00530–JAW.,1:14–cv–00530–JAW.
• Citation: 121 F.Supp.3d 201
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL–CIO, Local Lodge No. 1821, et al., Plaintiffs, v. VERSO CORP., et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Maine

121 F.Supp.3d 201

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL–CIO, Local Lodge No. 1821, et al., Plaintiffs,

v.VERSO CORP., et al., Defendants.

No. 1:14–cv–00530–JAW.

United States District Court, D. Maine.

Signed Aug. 3, 2015.

Ishai Mooreville, Donald I. Baker, Baker & Miller PLLC, Washington, DC, Jesse Markham, Baker & Miller LLP, San Francisco, CA, Kimberly J. Ervin Tucker, Law Office of Kimberly J. Ervin Tucker, Lincolnville, ME, Dana F. Strout, Law Office of Dana Strout, Rockport, ME, for Plaintiffs.

Scott Alan Stempel, Greta Louise Burkholder, Scott Alan Stempel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Washington, DC, David E. Barry, Nolan L. Reichl, Pierce Atwood LLP, David A. Strock, Littler Mendelson, PC, Clifford Ruprecht, Roach Hewitt Ruprecht Sanchez & Bischoff, P.C., Portland, ME, for Defendants.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION

JOHN A. WOODCOCK, JR., District Judge.

This case arose from an agreement between Verso Paper Corp. and Verso Paper LLC (Verso) and AIM Development USA, LLC (AIM) in which Verso agreed to sell and AIM to purchase Verso's Bucksport, Maine Paper Mill. While the sale was pending, Verso ceased paper mill operations in Bucksport, and former Verso employees of the Bucksport Paper Mill and their union sought a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief against Verso concerning their right to timely payment of severance pay and final wages, including accrued 2015 vacation pay, in accordance with time frames they said, and continue to say, are established under state law. The Court dismissed Plaintiffs' claims for severance pay because it concluded that Maine law precluded them from proceeding once the state of Maine Director of Bureau of Labor Standards (Director) brought suit in state court against the Defendants, and the Court dismissed their claims for vacation pay because it concluded that state rather than federal court, was a better venue for adjudicating that claim. Plaintiffs now ask the Court to reconsider that Order relating only to their claims for timely severance pay, or in the alternative, to certify the case for review by the Maine Law Court or the First Circuit Court of Appeals. The Court denies Plaintiffs' motion.

I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

On January 6, 2015, the Court dismissed a motion for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief and a motion for attachment and trustee process brought by the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL–CIO, Local Lodge No. 1821 (IAM or IAMAW), and 58 Local No. 1821 Members (Plaintiffs). Order Dismissing Pls.' Mot. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief; and Dismissing Pls.' Mot. for Attach. and Trustee Process at 85 (ECF No. 73) (Severance Order ). On January 20, 2015, Plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration and request for certification. Pls.' Mot. for Recons., Certification to the Maine Supreme Judicial Ct., or Certification of Appeal for Interlocutory Review of the Severance Pay Claims in Count 9 (ECF No. 97) (Pls.' Mot. ). Verso filed its response in opposition on February 10, 2015. Defs. Verso Paper Corp. and Verso Paper LLC's Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Recons., Certification to the Maine Supreme Judicial Ct., or Certification of Appeal for Interlocutory Review of the Severance Pay Claims in Count 9 (ECF No. 100) (Defs.' Opp'n). Plaintiffs replied on February 27, 2015. Pls.' Reply to the Verso Defs.' Opp'n to Their Mot. for Recons., Certification to the Maine Supreme Judicial Ct., or Certification of Appeal for Interlocutory Review of the Severance Pay Claims in Count 9 (ECF No. 111) (Pls.' Reply). On March 5, 2015, Verso filed a surreply. Defs. Verso Paper Corp. and Verso Paper LLC's Surreply in Further Opp'n to Mot. for Recons., Certification to the Maine Supreme Judicial Ct., or Certification of Appeal for Interlocutory Review of the Severance Pay Claims in Count 9 (ECF No. 119) (Defs.' Surreply).¹

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Severance Order

The IAMAW and the five named individual Plaintiffs filed this action on December 15, 2014. Compl. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 1) (Compl. ). On December 22, 2014, Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint, which added 53 Local No. 1821 Members as plaintiffs and included additional allegations. First Am. Compl. for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief (ECF No. 29) (First Am. Compl. ). In their First Amended Complaint,² Plaintiffs alleged that Verso refused "to comply with the laws of the State of Maine governing the timely payment of severance pay and final wages, including accrued 2015 vacation time, in violation of 26 M.R.S. §§ 625–B and 626."³ Id. ¶ 6. On December 23, 2014, the state of Maine and the Director filed a complaint against Verso in Kennebec County Superior Court, and a proposed consent order; Superior Court Justice Robert Mullen signed and dated the Consent Order the day it was filed. Def. Verso Paper Corp. and Verso Paper LLC's Supplemental Mem. of Law in Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Expedited Declaratory J. and Req. for Prelim. and Permanent Inj. Attach. 2 Compl. (ECF No. 40) (Director Compl.); id. Attach. 3 Consent Order.

The Court was tasked with ruling on several issues. First, it held that "it ha[d] diversity jurisdiction over all claims" brought by Plaintiffs. Severance Order at 56.

Second, and most relevant to this Order, the Court addressed whether Plaintiffs' pending prior-filed suit for timely severance pay had to be dismissed in light of the subsequent complaint filed by the state of Maine and the Director in Kennebec County Superior Court, in accordance with 26 M.R.S. § 625–B(5). Id. at 5781. In concluding that Plaintiffs' suit for timely severance pay had to be dismissed under Maine law, the Court first considered the organization of the statute in general and section 625–B in particular. Id. at 59–61. Next, the Court considered comparative federal laws, Supreme Court caselaw interpreting those federal laws, Maine and United States Supreme Court caselaw interpreting section 625–B, the plain language of section 625–B, and the legislative history of section 625–B presented by the parties to determine what is meant by the "right to maintain an action" in relation to 26 M.R.S. § 625–B(4)⁴ and 26 M.R.S. § 625–B(5).⁵ Id. at 61–70. The Court discussed nine different policy reasons in support of its conclusion that Plaintiffs' suit for timely severance pay had to be dismissed. Id. at 70–80. In addition, the Court considered abstaining from ruling on Plaintiffs' severance claims; however, it explained that "Plaintiffs properly made the point that they would be filing their state lawsuit after the Director had filed her lawsuit and under their own interpretation of subsection 5, they would have been precluded from filing suit." Id. at 85 n. 22. The Court agreed with their analysis, and out of "fairness to Plaintiffs," issued a ruling on the merits rather than abstaining on this part of their claim. Id.

Third, the Court abstained from ruling on the vacation pay issue, reasoning that the Consent Order filed in Kennebec County Superior Court addressed the timing of vacation pay, and "there are matters of state law more properly resolved in state [rather] than federal court." Id. at 83–84.

B. Events Following the Court's Severance Order

After the Court issued the Severance Order on January 6, 2015, several events took place. First, the Consent Order required severance payments to be made in two installments, the first due on January 8, 2015. Consent Order ¶ 10. Verso made these payments in accordance with the Consent Order. Defs.' Opp'n Attach. 1 Decl. of Charles Welch in Support of the

Verso Defs.' Opp'n to Pls.' Mot. for Recons., Certification to the Maine Supreme Judicial Ct., or Certification of Appeal for Interlocutory Review of the Severance Pay Claims in Count 9 ¶ 4 (Welch Decl.).

Second, the Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction as to the antitrust portion of the suit on January 20, 2015. Order Denying Pls.' Mot. for a TRO and Prelim. Inj. and Addendum (ECF No. 96). Third, Verso completed its sale of the Bucksport Mill to AIM on January 29, 2015. Welch Decl. ¶ 6. Fourth, the Consent Order required the second installment of severance payments to be made by the earlier of the fifth business day after Verso's sale of the Bucksport Mill, or by March 19, 2015. Consent Order ¶ 11. The final severance payments were due by February 5, 2015, and Verso says it made these payments in accordance with the Consent Order. Welch Decl. ¶ 7. In Verso's view, all severance payments have now been made to every eligible individual Plaintiff.⁶

Id. ¶¶ 8–9.

On February 19, 2015, in accordance with paragraph 14 of the Consent Order, Plaintiffs filed "a formal challenge regarding the accuracy and adequacy of the payments to ... 53 individuals ... with the Director of the Bureau of Labor Standards." Gilley Decl. ¶ 35. The same was also filed in Kennebec County Superior Court on February 22, 2015. Id. According to Plaintiffs, they are collectively owed an additional $357,158.53. Pls.' Reply Attach. 4 RE: Bucksport Mill Verso's Failure to Fully Pay Severance Payments to Members of IAMAW Local Lodge # 1821 at 1. In addition, the Attorney General filed a motion to dismiss the State's claim against Verso with prejudice in Kennebec County Superior Court, and in response, Plaintiffs filed an objection, seeking dismissal without prejudice, pursuant to 26 M.R.S. § 625B(5), on February 22, 2015.Id. Attach. 3 Objection of Interested Parties (IAMAW Local Lodge No. 1821 On Behalf of Its Members Who are the Beneficiaries) to Dismissal with Prejudice and Mot. for Dismissal Without Prejudice at 1.

Plaintiffs explain in their briefing that Justice Mullen held a telephonic hearing with the parties on February 23, 2015, whereby he "urged Verso to provide all employees with the data needed to determine the accuracy of the severance and vacation time pay that Verso has made to...