Martin v. Local 556, Transp. Workers Union of Am.

• Decision Date: 03 September 2014
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-0500-D
• Parties: STACY K. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOCAL 556, TRANSPORTATION WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas

STACY K. MARTIN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. LOCAL 556, TRANSPORTATION WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.

Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-0500-D

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

September 3, 2014

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

In this labor dispute arising from disciplinary actions taken against officers of a union local, the court must decide whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over one claim and whether plaintiffs have stated a claim on which relief can be granted. For the reasons that follow, the court grants defendant's motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), and grants plaintiffs leave to amend as to all claims that are curable by amendment.

I

This is an action by plaintiffs Stacy K. Martin ("Martin"), Chris Click ("Click"), and Jerry Lindemann ("Lindemann") against defendant Local 556, Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO ("TWU Local"), seeking relief under the Norris LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. §§ 101-15 ("NLA"), the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. §§ 141-97 ("LMRA"), and the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959,29 U.S.C. §§ 401-531 ("LMRDA"). Plaintiffs are flight attendants employed by Southwest Airlines. They are also members of TWU Local, the local of the labor union that represents Southwest Airlines' flight attendants.¹ Each plaintiff ran for and was elected to a union local office in 2012. Martin was elected President, Click First Vice President, and Lindemann Treasurer.

Following the elections, the President of the international union ("TWU International") requested that the TWU Local Executive Board grant leave to Thom McDaniel ("McDaniel"), the Immediate Past President of the TWU Local, so that he could accept a position with TWU International. McDaniel allegedly opposed plaintiffs during the 2012 elections. Plaintiffs contend that, as union President, Martin opposed TWU International's request because TWU International did not follow proper protocol in submitting it. The Executive Board denied the request. TWU International's President thenallegedly threatened to charge Martin with violations of union rules if he continued to oppose the request. Ultimately, the dispute was submitted to arbitration, and the arbitrator ruled in McDaniel's favor.

In the spring of 2013, a member of the TWU Local Executive Board charged Click and Lindemann jointly with violations of union rules, and another member² separately charged Click with other union rules violations. Click's individual trial was scheduled for May 14, 2013, and Click and Lindemann's joint trial was scheduled for May 15, 2013. On May 13 the Executive Board attempted to delay the trial dates to May 22 and May 23, 2013, respectively, by insisting that Martin reschedule the trials. Martin allegedly refused to assist the Executive Board in its attempt to delay the trials on the basis that doing so would constitute a violation of union rules. Click and Lindemann attended their trials on May 14 and 15, 2013 and were acquitted of all charges. On May 16, 2013 Lindemann went on formally approved, extended medical leave. On the same day, the Executive Board notified Click and Lindemann that it was nullifying the results of the May 14 and 15 trials and scheduling their retrials for May 23 and 24, 2013, respectively. On May 23 a retrial committee found Click guilty and removed him from office. On May 24 a retrial committee found Click and Lindemann guilty, removed them from office, and banned them from holding union office for three years. Plaintiffs allege that neither Click nor Lindemann was present for the retrials on May 23 and 24. On May 16, 2013 the Executive Board alsocharged Martin with violating union rules. The Executive Board conducted Martin's trial on May 29 and 30, found him guilty, removed him from office, and banned him from holding union office for three years.

Plaintiffs then brought the instant lawsuit against TWU Local, alleging that it had violated their rights under the LMRDA. TWU Local filed a motion to dismiss and an amended motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint, and TWU Local filed the instant motion to dismiss the amended complaint. In its present motion, TWU Local incorporates by reference the arguments and authorities asserted in its first motion to dismiss.³ TWU Local moves to dismiss count II of plaintiffs' amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for failure to establish federal question jurisdiction, and to dismiss count I under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead a plausible claim for relief under the LMRDA.

II

The court considers first TWU Local's Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.⁴

A

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and absent jurisdiction conferred by statute, lack the power to adjudicate claims." Stockman v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 138 F.3d 144, 151 (5th Cir. 1998). "The burden of proof for a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss is on the party asserting jurisdiction. Accordingly, the plaintiff constantly bears the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist." Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (per curiam) (citations omitted).

B

Plaintiffs predicate subject matter jurisdiction over count II on the jurisdictional grant found in 29 U.S.C. § 185(a) of the LMRA,⁵ which provides:

Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.

Section 185(a) imposes a jurisdictional requirement. See, e.g., Tex. Indus., Inc. v. RadcliffMaterials, Inc., 451 U.S. 630, 642-43 (1981) ("In this vein, this Court has read § 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), . . . as granting jurisdiction over defined areas of labor law[.]"); Hou. Ref., L.P. v. United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg., Energy, Allied Indust. & Serv. Workers Int'l Union, ___ F.3d ___, 2014 WL 4197057, at *3 (5th Cir. Aug. 25, 2014) ("We have in the past read section 301(a) as a jurisdictional requirement."). "[A]n allegation of a labor contract violation is both necessary and sufficient to support subject-matter jurisdiction under section 301(a). If the court later finds the allegedly violated contract to be non-existent or invalid, it must dismiss for failure to state a claim, not for lack of jurisdiction." Hou. Ref. L.P., 2014 WL 4197057, at *5 (footnote omitted); see also id. at *6 ("[T]he alleged violation of a labor contract is both necessary and sufficient to invoke federal subject-matter jurisdiction under section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a).").

The amended complaint does not allege that count II pertains to a violation of a contract between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations. The only conceivable contract mentioned in count II is the TWU International Constitution. See Am. Compl. ¶¶ 73-76. But the amended complaint does not allege that the TWU International Constitution is a contract between an employer and a labor organization or between labor organizations. Plaintiffs allege that the TWU International Constitution "is a contract between [TWU] Local and its members." Id. at ¶ 76. They assert that the TWU Local Executive Board violated its duties and responsibilities under the TWU International Constitution. Id. at ¶¶ 77-80.

Accordingly, because an allegation of a labor contract violation is necessary to support subject matter jurisdiction under § 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and plaintiffs have not alleged such a violation, the court grants TWU Local's motion to dismiss count II of the amended complaint under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

III

TWU Local moves under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss count I of plaintiffs' amended complaint.

A

In deciding defendant's Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the court evaluates the sufficiency of plaintiffs' amended complaint "by accepting all well-pleaded facts as true, viewing them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff." Bramlett v. Med. Protective Co. of Fort Wayne, Ind., 855 F.Supp.2d 615, 618 (N.D. Tex. 2012) (Fitzwater, C.J.) (quoting In re Katrina Canal Breaches Litig., 495 F.3d 191, 205 (5th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted)). To survive defendant's motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), plaintiffs must plead "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556); see also Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 ("Factual allegations must be enough to raise aright to relief above the speculative level[.]"). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged-but it has not 'shown'-'that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)) (alteration omitted). "Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Id. at 678. Furthermore, under Rule 8(a)(2), a pleading must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]" Although "the pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require ...