Midwest Division-MMC, LLC v. Cal. Nurses' Ass'n
| Decision Date | 22 October 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-02372-JAR-TJJ |
| Parties | MIDWEST DIVISION-MMC, LLC, d/b/a MENORAH MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff, v. CALIFORNIA NURSES' ASSOCIATION, d/b/a NNOC-MISSOURI & KANSAS NNU, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Kansas |
Plaintiff Midwest Division-MMC, LLC, doing business as Menorah Medical Center ("MMC"), brings this declaratory judgment action against Defendant California Nurses' Association, doing business as NNOC-Missouri & Kansas NNU ("Union"), seeking a declaration that the Union's grievance is not arbitrable and that the Union must withdraw its request for arbitration. This matter is before the Court on the Union's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (Doc. 12). The motion is fully briefed and the Court is prepared to rule. For the reasons explained below, the Court grants the motion to dismiss.
MMC operates a hospital in Overland Park, Kansas, and the Union represents a bargaining unit of Registered Nurses employed by MMC. MMC and the Union entered into a collective bargaining agreement ("Agreement") on October 21, 2018, effective through May 31, 2021. The Agreement was in effect at the time of the grievance giving rise to this dispute.
The Agreement sets forth the grievance and arbitration procedures for resolving certain disputes. Some, but not all disputes are subject to these procedures under the Agreement. Step one of the grievance procedure requires an authorized union representative to file a written grievance with the manager of the nursing unit. If the grievance is not resolved in a mutually satisfactory manner, the authorized union representative may proceed to step two by submitting the written grievance to the Chief Nursing Officer. "If a grievance affects more than one unit or department of [MMC], and relief is unavailable from the immediate supervisor, it may be submitted immediately at Step Two."1 If the grievance is not resolved at step two, the Union may advance the grievance to arbitration by submitting a written demand to the Chief Nursing Officer or previously authorized designee and by submitting a request to the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service ("FMCS") for a panel of arbitrators. Upon receipt of the list of arbitrators on the panel, 2 The parties must flip a coin to determine which party strikes the first name.
Under the Agreement, MMC provides certain benefits to its Registered Nurses, including a 401(k) plan. Article 5, which governs those benefits, addresses termination or amendment of 401(k) plans. In pertinent part, Article 5 provides:
[MMC] may amend or terminate any of the plans referred to in this Article, subject to the conditions below. No termination or amendment of a plan or any issues relating to administration or application of such plans, shall be subject to the grievance and arbitration provisions of this Agreement. If [MMC] intends to change a plan . . . in a way that will result in a substantial decrease to any particular plan for bargaining unit Registered Nurses, management will give the Union six (6) months' advance notice and will, upon request, engage in effects bargaining with the Union for no more than sixty (60) days. [MMC] will consider seriously any recommendations the Union may choose to make with respect to the intended change, but may implement the change after the expiration of the six (6) months.3
On June 19, 2020, the Union filed a grievance alleging that MMC "unilaterally made changes to the 401(k) in a manner that was discriminatory to the bargaining unit members [and] in violation of the contract."4 The Union requested that MMC "[r]estore 401(k) contribution to previous level [sic]."5 The following month, the Union submitted an arbitration request and requested a panel of arbitrators from the FMCS. On July 21, 2020, MMC sent the Union a letter refusing its arbitration request. The letter argued that the grievance is neither grievable nor arbitrable and asked the Union to immediately withdraw the grievance with prejudice and to withdraw its request for a panel of arbitrators.
Less than two weeks later, MMC filed this action, requesting that the Court enter a declaratory judgment that the Union's grievance is not arbitrable and directing the Union to withdraw its demand for arbitration and request for a panel of arbitrators. The Union filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that MMC lacks standing to bring this declaratory judgment action because it suffers no injury in fact.
Shortly thereafter, in an email dated September 21, 2020, MMC announced that it would not amend the Registered Nurses' 401(k) plan after all.6 The Union has withdrawn the grievance with prejudice and withdrawn its request for a panel of arbitrators from FMCS. In light of these recent developments, the Union argues that, even if MMC has standing, "the matter is now entirely moot."7
Defendant moves to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and, as such, there is a strong presumption against federal jurisdiction.8 A court lacking jurisdiction "must dismiss the cause at any stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking."9 The burden of establishing a federal court's subject matter jurisdiction falls on the plaintiff.10 Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are insufficient.11
Under Rule 12(b)(1), dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction comes in two forms: facial attacks and factual attacks. A facial attack challenges the sufficiency of the complaint. "In reviewing a facial attack on the complaint, a district court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true."12 Here, Defendant presents a facial attack on the Complaint, to which several exhibits are attached. The Court therefore considers whether the allegations in the Complaint, if accepted as true, establish jurisdiction.
The Declaratory Judgment Act provides in pertinent part that, "[i]n a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction, . . . any court of the United States, upon the filing of an appropriate pleading, may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested partyseeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought."13 "[T]he phrase 'case of actual controversy' in the Act refers to the type of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III."14
An "actual controversy" exists only when the parties "ha[ve] taken adverse positions with respect to their existing obligations."15 Thus, the controversy must be "'definite and concrete, touching the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests,' must be 'real and substantial' and 'admit of specific relief through a decree of a conclusive character, as distinguished from an opinion advising what the law would be upon a hypothetical state of facts.'"16 Even where a court faces a justiciable Article III case or controversy, however, the Act gives federal courts broad discretion to declare the rights of the litigants.17
One of the doctrines reflecting Article III's case-or-controversy limitation on jurisdictional power is the doctrine of standing. That doctrine requires that a plaintiff invoking federal jurisdiction establish the "irreducible constitutional minimum" of standing:
The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing each element of standing "with the manner and degree of evidence required at the successive stages of the litigation."19 Standing is evaluated based on the facts as they exist at the time the complaint is filed.20 At the pleading stage, the Court "presum[es] that general allegations embrace those specific facts that are necessary to support the claim,"21 and "general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice."22 Nonetheless, the Court is "not bound by conclusory allegations, unwarranted inferences, or legal conclusions."23
The parties dispute whether MMC suffers an "injury in fact." MMC's Complaint alleges that "[t]he Union's conduct . . . would result in harm to MMC by requiring it to arbitrate a claim" it has not agreed to arbitrate.24 The Union, however, contends that MMC "did not" and "cannot suffer any harm as a result of the Union filing a grievance and requesting a panel of arbitrators from FMCS" because neither "force MMC to arbitrate the matter."25 The Union agrees that the dispute is not subject to the grievance and arbitration procedures set forth in the Agreement but states that "this does not in any manner prohibit MMC and the Union from mutually agreeing to submit a dispute to arbitration . . . rather than potentially having to resolve a dispute by a lawsuitover breach of contract or by an unfair labor practice charge."26 MMC responds that the Union's "refusal" to withdraw the grievance and its request for a panel of arbitrators "continues to result in harm" in the form of "attorney's fees, costs, disruption of the stability and certainty necessary in labor...
To continue reading
Request your trial