Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters Local 651 v. Philbeck

• Decision Date: 03 June 2020
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 5: 19-105-DCR
• Citation: 464 F.Supp.3d 863
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Kentucky
• Parties: INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 651, Plaintiff, v. Michael PHILBECK, Defendant.

464 F.Supp.3d 863

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS LOCAL 651, Plaintiff,

v.Michael PHILBECK, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 5: 19-105-DCR

United States District Court, E.D. Kentucky, Central Division. (at Lexington).

Signed June 3, 2020

David O'Brien Suetholz, Branstetter, Stranch & Jennings, PLLC, Louisville, KY, Pamela M. Newport, Pro Hac Vice, Branstetter Stranch & Jennings, Cincinnati, OH, for Plaintiff.

Matthew T. Lockaby, Tamara Patterson, Lockaby PLLC, Lexington, KY, for Defendant.

Michael Philbeck, Paint Lick, KY, pro se.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Danny C. Reeves, Chief Judge

Plaintiff International Brotherhood of Teamsters Local 651 (hereafter, "Local 651" or "the Union") has filed a motion for summary judgment or, alternatively, for a default judgment. [Record No. 68] As relief, Local 651 requests the passwords and administrative access to a plethora of Facebook pages and a permanent injunction to keep Defendant Michael Philbeck from using the Facebook accounts and to keep him from holding himself out as an officer of the Union. [Id. ] The Union is only seeking the return of the social media accounts; it is not seeking actual damages for other items Philbeck allegedly took and converted for his own use. Because Local 651 has failed to meet its burden on four of its six claims, its motion will be granted, in part, and denied, in part.

I.

Defendant Philbeck served as president of Local 651 from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2018. [Record No. 1, p. 2] Although Philbeck lost re-election as Local 651 president in November 2018, he remains a member of the Union. [Record No. 1, p. 1] After losing the election, Philbeck allegedly removed property belonging to the Union, including a digital camera, laptop, and points on the Union credit card (which he converted to gift cards) that he retained for his personal benefit. [Record No. 1, p. 1] While Philbeck was president of the Union, he had control over its Facebook page and created a union member group on Facebook. [Record No. 1, p. 2] Philbeck removed administrative privileges from other Union executive board members and changed the passwords for the pages following his unsuccessful re-election bid.

Local 651 president-elect Michael Watson notified Philbeck on November 20, 2018, not to make any extraordinary expenditures ($1,000 or more) without notifying the incoming officers. [Record No. 2-1, p. 5] Watson requested a meeting with Philbeck on December 20, 2018, to discuss Philbeck's alleged extraordinary expenditures – including $20,000.00 for accrued vacation retained during previous years, a $2,000.00 laptop, a digital camera, and conversion of 165,000 credit card points into gift cards. [Record No. 1, p. 6] But no meeting occurred.

Local 651 filed this action on March 15, 2019, asserting that the defendant breached contracts under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), breached his fiduciary duty under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), converted the Union's property, and appropriated the plaintiff's name or likeness. [Record No. 1] Local 651 asserts additional claims for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and unfair competition. [Record No. 1]

Local 651 filed a motion for a temporary restraining order or a preliminary injunction to enjoin Philbeck from accessing, administering, or posting on social media accounts that are held out, "passed off," or could be perceived as official accounts or pages of Local 651. [Record No. 2] It also sought to enjoin Philbeck from holding himself out as a current officer of Local 651 or attempting to gain access to unauthorized information and to compel him to turn over passwords for all of Local 651's social media accounts. [Id. ]

This Court granted a preliminary injunction, enjoining Philbeck from posting on the social media accounts he controls that are portrayed, publicized, or otherwise held out or could be perceived as official accounts or pages of the Union without identifying himself as the poster and from holding himself out as a current officer of the Union. [Record No. 14] Further, Philbeck was required to identify himself as the author of any post on any social media page perceived as an official page of the Union in bold print and all caps and state that he was not a current officer of the Union. The Court modified the preliminary injunction following a contempt hearing on October 16, 2019. [Record No. 52] The Court found that Philbeck violated the original preliminary injunction several times and never indicated that he could not comply with the Court's original order. The Court required Philbeck to post a clear disclaimer at the beginning and end of every post on social media.

Philbeck filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim for relief. [Record No. 33] That motion was denied because the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff's claims and because the plaintiff stated viable claims for relief. [Record No. 57] Philbeck then filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or a preliminary injunction. [Record No. 62] That motion was denied because Philbeck had not asserted claims upon which to base injunctive relief and because injunctive relief would not be appropriate on the merits. As further noted by the Court, Philbeck sought to enjoin individuals who could not be bound by an injunction. [Record No. 63] Philbeck never filed a responsive pleading following the denial of his motion to dismiss.

Local 651 moved for summary judgment requesting a permanent injunction giving it control over the disputed social media accounts, as well as costs and attorney's fees. While there are multiple references to property other than the social media accounts allegedly misappropriated by Philbeck, the plaintiff does not request any form of relief for the other Union property allegedly kept by Philbeck. It only requests passwords and administrative access related to the social media accounts. Specifically, the Union requests passwords and administrative access "for all social media accounts purporting to be official Teamsters Local 651 accounts, including but not limited to, the Teamsters Local 651 Facebook Page, Teamsters Local 651 UPS Member Resource Group, and the Official Teamsters Local 651 Members Resourse [sic] Group." [Record No. 68-1, p. 3] The plaintiff explains that, "based on the Union's First Amended Complaint, it is not seeking actual damages for the goods or monies it believes Philbeck took and converted to his own use. However, the Union still contends that Philbeck engaged in these activities, establishing the predicate violations for the relief it seeks." [Record No. 68-1, p. 7] Philbeck filed a response attempting to assert counterclaims and generally discussing unrelated qualms he has with the Union. [Record No. 77]

II.

Entry of summary judgment is appropriate if there are no genuine disputes regarding any material facts and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a) ; see Celotex Corp. v. Catrett , 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) ; Chao v. Hall Holding Co. , 285 F.3d 415, 424 (6th Cir. 2002). The determination must be "whether the evidence presents a sufficient disagreement to require submission to a jury or whether it is so one-sided that one party must prevail as a matter of law." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. , 477 U.S. 242, 251-52, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986).

In the typical case, the moving party carries an initial burden to produce evidence to present a prima facie case that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Celotex , 477 U.S. at 317, 106 S.Ct. 2548 ; see also Angelo v. Kroger Co. , No. 86-3912, 1987 WL 44635, at *8, 1987 U.S. App. LEXIS 11965, at *24 (6th Cir. Sept. 3, 1987) ("The burden of production imposed by Rule 56 requires the moving party to make a prima facie showing that it is entitled to summary judgment.") (internal citations omitted). Once the moving party has met its burden of production, "its opponent must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to the material facts." Keeneland Ass'n, Inc. v. Eamer , 830 F. Supp. 974, 984 (E.D. Ky. 1993) (citing Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp. , 475 U.S. 574, 586, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986) ).

"When a plaintiff is the moving party for summary judgment, the burden is high." Wells v. Howard Berger Co. , No. 2012-190, 2014 WL 2993067, at *2, 2014 Dist. LEXIS 90094, at *5 (E.D. Ky. July 2, 2014) (citing Fontenot v. Upjohn Co. , 780 F.2d 1190, 1195 (5th Cir. 1986) ).

A plaintiff-movant must present evidence that would entitle him to a directed verdict if that evidence were not controverted at trial. If the defendants respond to the motion with controverting evidence which demonstrates a genuine issue of material fact, plaintiff's motion must be denied. However, if, after analyzing the combined body of evidence presented by both parties, the evidence is such that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the defendants, then summary judgment will be entered on behalf of the plaintiff-movant.

United States v. Long , 121 F. Supp. 3d 763, 767 (N.D. Ohio 2014) (citing Fitzpatrick v. City of Atlanta , 2 F.3d 1112, 1115 (11th Cir. 1993) ); see also Viet v. Le , 951 F.3d 818, 823 (6th Cir. 2020) (" Rule 56 ... compels summary judgment against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial.") (internal citations and quotations omitted). In deciding whether to grant summary judgment, the Court views all the facts and inferences drawn from the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. , 475 U.S. at 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348.

III.

A. Dispute Over Ownership of the Social Media Accounts

A dispute over the control of...