Modeste v. Local 1199, Drug, Hosp. and Health Care Employees Union, RWDSU, AFL-CIO, AFL-CI
| Decision Date | 20 September 1994 |
| Docket Number | AFL-CI,D,No. 204,E,204 |
| Citation | 38 F.3d 626 |
| Parties | 147 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2606, 129 Lab.Cas. P 11,230 Yvonne MODESTE and Arthur Modeste, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. LOCAL 1199, DRUG, HOSPITAL AND HEALTH CARE EMPLOYEES UNION, RWDSU,stela Vasquez, Thomas Dawes, Rosa Cruz, Carmen Nieves and Nilda Nieves, Defendants-Appellees. ocket 94-7209. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Donald D. Casale, New York City (Michael Flomenhaft, Flomenhaft Karam & Casale, on the brief), for plaintiffs-appellants.
Elisabeth Werby, New York City (Daniel J. Ratner, Levy, Pollack & Ratner, on the brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before: NEWMAN, Chief Judge, KEARSE and CARDAMONE, Circuit Judges.
Yvonne and Arthur Modeste appeal from the March 17, 1994, judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York (Sonia Sotomayor, Judge), dismissing, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), three causes of action against defendant-appellee Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union ("the Union"). The claims arise from intentional torts allegedly inflicted by members of the Union during a strike, 850 F.Supp. 1156.
Appellants had sued the individual tortfeasors and had also sought to hold the Union liable for the torts, even though state law makes an unincorporated association liable for the torts of its members only where the unlawful acts are authorized or ratified by each member of the association. See Martin v. Curran, 303 N.Y. 276, 101 N.E.2d 683 (1951). Appellants contended that section 6 of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 106 (1988), created a substantive federal right to sue unions for acts of their members and that, if state law does not render the Union liable, section 6 preempts state law. The suit had been removed from state court on the basis of two causes of action arising under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act ("LMRDA"), 29 U.S.C. Sec. 411 (1988). After a stipulated dismissal of the LMRDA claims and some state law claims, the defendants moved for dismissal of the three claims alleged to arise under, or be related to, the Norris-LaGuardia Act. The District Court granted the motion, ordered entry of judgment under Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b), and remanded to state court the remaining state law claims against the individual defendants.
We affirm the District Court's ruling on the comprehensive opinion of Judge Sotomayor, reported at 850 F.Supp. 1156.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Nweke v. Prudential Ins. Co. of America
...See Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir.1994); Modeste v. Local 1199, 850 F.Supp. 1156, 1167 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 38 F.3d 626 (2d Cir.1994). Conclusion For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint is dismissed as to the Unions, and the pendent state law claims are dismissed fo......
-
A. Terzi Production v. Theatrical Protect. Union, 97 Civ. 3615(SS).
...acknowledged in Modeste v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital, and Health Care Employees Union, 850 F.Supp. 1156, 1166 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 38 F.3d 626 (2d Cir.1994), that "the Martin rule makes it very difficult for a plaintiff to maintain a cause of action against an unincorporated labor union in t......
-
Roberts v. New York State Dept. Correctional Serv., 95-CV-223C(F).
...See Purgess v. Sharrock, 33 F.3d 134, 138 (2d Cir.1994); Modeste v. Local 1199, 850 F.Supp. 1156, 1167 (S.D.N.Y.1994), aff'd, 38 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 1994). Should the court choose to address Plaintiff's claim pursuant to the Human Rights Law as within its supplemental jurisdiction, the court ......
-
Langford v. Int'l Union of Operating Engineers
...or ratified by each member of the association.’ ” 2008 WL 850263, at *12–13 (quoting Modeste v. Local 1199, Drug, Hospital and Health Care Employees Union, RWDSU, AFL–CIO, 38 F.3d 626, 627 (2d Cir.1994)). McIntyre also cited Girolamo. McIntyre and Girolamo, however, are based on an apparent......
-
An Empirical Study of Obstacle Preemption in the Supreme Court
...U.S. 677 (2006); A. Brod v. SKandI Co., 998 F. Supp. 314 (S.D.N.Y. 1998); Modeste v. Local 1199, 850 F. Supp. 1156 (S.D.N.Y. 1994), affd, 38 F.3d 626 (2d Cir. 1994); Rombom v. United Airlines, 867 F. Supp. 214 (S.D.N.Y. 1994). But see King v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 284 F.3d 352 (2d Cir. 2002);......