Int'l Union, Sec., Police & Fire Prof'ls of Am. v. Faye

• Decision Date: 16 July 2015
• Docket Number: Civil Case No. 09–2229 (RJL)
• Citation: 115 F.Supp.3d 40
• Parties: International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, Plaintiff, v. Assane Faye, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

115 F.Supp.3d 40

International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America, Plaintiff,

v.Assane Faye, Defendant.

Civil Case No. 09–2229 (RJL)

United States District Court, District of Columbia.

Signed July 16, 2015

Filed July 20, 2015

Anton Hajjar, Murphy Anderson PLLC, Washington, DC, Scott A. Brooks, Gregory Moore Jeakle Heinen & Brooks P.C., Detroit, MI, for Plaintiff.

Eden J. Brown Gaines, Brown Gaines, LLC, White Plains, MD, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD J. LEON, United States District Judge

Plaintiff International Union, Security, Police and Fire Professionals of America ("SPFPA" or "plaintiff") brings this action against defendant Assane Faye ("defendant"), alleging that defendant breached his fiduciary duties, duty of loyalty, and duties under the SPFPA Constitution and Bylaws while employed by the SPFPA. See generally Compl. [Dkt. # 1]. Before this Court are defendant's Motion to Dismiss [Dkt. # 43] ("Mot. to Dismiss") and plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment [Dkt. # 45] ("Mot. for Summ. J."). Because this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the alleged federal law claims and therefore must not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the alleged state common law claims, the defendant's Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED and plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED as MOOT.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff SPFPA is a labor union that represents security officers throughout the United States. Compl. ¶¶ 1, 5. Defendant was employed by the SPFPA from 2004 until September 24, 2009. Compl. ¶ 6. At no time was defendant a member of the SPFPA. Def.'s Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of His Mot. to Dismiss 1 [Dkt. # 43] ("Def.'s Mem."). Plaintiff alleges that, during his employment with the SPFPA, defendant engaged in actions contrary to the interests of the SPFPA, including helping establish a competing labor organization and encouraging SPFPA members to join that competing union. Compl. ¶ 9; Pl.'s Br. in Supp. of Mot. for Partial Summ. J. ¶ 9 [Dkt. # 45] ("Pl.'s Br. in Supp."). For these alleged offenses, plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant on November 24, 2009 asserting two federal law and four state common law claims. The federal law claims include violations of the Labor–Management and Reporting Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. § 501, and violations of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185.¹ Because plaintiff asserts federal law claims, it contends that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and § 1337. Compl. ¶ 4. On October 14, 2014, defendant filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), arguing that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the ostensible federal causes of action and therefore should not exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state common law claims. See generally Def.'s Mem. In support of this claim, defendant argues that neither the LMRDA nor the LMRA creates a federal cause of action for a union to sue, on its own behalf, its former employee who was at no time a member of the union. Id.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and a court should begin with a presumption that a case lies outside its jurisdiction. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). The burden of establishing that subject matter jurisdiction exists rests upon the party asserting it. Id. ; see also Moms Against Mercury v. Food & Drug Admin., 483 F.3d 824, 828 (D.C.Cir.2007) ; Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F.Supp.2d 9, 13 (D.D.C.2001). In evaluating a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the Court must construe the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See, e.g., Hohri v. United States, 782 F.2d 227, 241 (D.C.Cir.1986), vacated on other grounds, 482 U.S. 64, 107 S.Ct. 2246, 96 L.Ed.2d 51 (1987). However, the Court's inquiry is not limited to the allegations in the complaint. Id. Rather, "a court may consider such materials outside the pleadings as it deems appropriate to resolve the question [of] whether it has jurisdiction to hear the case." Scolaro v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 104 F.Supp.2d 18, 22 (D.D.C.2000) ; see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005).

The issue of a court's subject matter jurisdiction "may be raised by a party, or by the court on its own initiative, at any stage in the litigation, even after trial and the entry of judgment." Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506, 126 S.Ct. 1235, 163 L.Ed.2d 1097 (2006). If a district court "determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (emphasis added).

ANALYSIS

A. Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 501(b)

Plaintiff alleges in Count I of its complaint that defendant breached fiduciary duties it owed to the SPFPA in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501. Compl. ¶¶ 13–17. Defendant seeks dismissal of this claim, arguing that the plain language of the statute does not authorize unions to sue. Def.'s Mem. 2–4. Plaintiff responds that the legislative intent, language, and structure of the statute demonstrate that Section 501(b) contains an implied federal cause of action for unions to sue on their own behalf. Pl.'s Br. in Opp'n to Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss 2–3 [Dkt. # 46] ("Pl.'s Opp'n Br.").

Section 501(a) of the LMRDA imposes particular fiduciary duties on union officials because "[t]he officers, agents, shop stewards, and other representatives of a labor organization occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group." 29 U.S.C. § 501(a). Section 501(b) prescribes the remedy for a breach of these duties, stating in relevant part:

When any officer, agent, shop steward, or representative of any labor organization is alleged to have violated the duties declared in subsection (a) of this section and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization, such member may sue such officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States or in any State court of competent jurisdiction to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization. No such proceeding shall be brought except upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown, which application may be made ex parte.

Id. at § 501(b). By its terms, Section 501(b) clearly creates a federal cause of action for an individual union member to file suit when certain procedural hurdles are met. Section 501(b) is silent, however, as to whether it creates a federal cause of action for a union to sue on its own behalf. Courts considering the issue have reached inconsistent conclusions, see Guidry v. Sheet Metal Workers Nat'l Pension Fund, 493 U.S. 365, 374 n. 16, 110 S.Ct. 680, 107 L.Ed.2d 782 (1990) (recognizing that courts have reached inconsistent positions on whether Section 501 creates an implied federal cause of action for unions but declining to resolve that divide), and our Circuit has yet to address the issue.² The Seventh and Eleventh Circuits have held that Section 501(a) creates an implied cause of action for unions to sue on their own behalf. Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, Local 150 v. Ward, 563 F.3d 276, 282–89 (7th Cir.2009) ; Int'l Union of Elec., Elec., Salaried, Mach. & Furniture Workers v. Statham, 97 F.3d 1416, 1418–21 (11th Cir.1996). The Ninth Circuit, however, has held that it does no such thing. Bldg. Material & Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 v. Traweek, 867 F.2d 500, 506–07 (9th Cir.1989). After reviewing the parties' briefs and existing case law, I agree with the Ninth Circuit: Section 501 does not create an implied cause of action for a union to sue on its own behalf.

The Supreme Court has made clear that when determining whether a federal statute contains an implied cause of action the "central inquiry" is Congressional intent. Touche Ross & Co. v. Redington, 442 U.S. 560, 575–76, 99 S.Ct. 2479, 61 L.Ed.2d 82 (1979) ; see also Transamerica Mortg. Advisors, Inc. (TAMA) v. Lewis, 444 U.S. 11, 15–16, 100 S.Ct. 242, 62 L.Ed.2d 146 (1979) (holding that the ultimate question in an implied right of action analysis is whether Congress intended to create a private right of action even if it did not expressly provide one). In 2001, the Supreme Court more specifically stated that "[t]he judicial task is to interpret the statute ... to determine whether it displays [not only] an intent to create ... a private right but also a private remedy." Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U.S. 275, 286, 121 S.Ct. 1511, 149 L.Ed.2d 517 (2001). Thus, unless Congressional intent to create a federal cause of action can be inferred from the language of the statute, the statutory structure, or some other source, there is no basis for the implication of a private remedy. See Thompson v. Thompson, 484 U.S. 174, 179, 108 S.Ct. 513, 98 L.Ed.2d 512 (1988) ; TAMA, 444 U.S. at 18, 100 S.Ct. 242. Indeed, the Supreme Court has made it clear that courts may not read into statutes a cause of action, even if doing so would further the purposes of the statute. Alexander, 532 U.S. at 286–87, 121 S.Ct. 1511.

Turning to the statutory text of Section 501, the plain language is clear: it authorizes individual union members to bring suit against union officials who violate the duties described in Section 501(a) when the union itself declines to do so. See 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). Courts, however, have found an implied federal cause of action exists for unions based upon the pre-condition of the union declining to bring a suit in some forum. See, e.g., Statham, 97 F.3d at 1419. Not surprisingly, ...