Murdock v. Am. Mar. Officers Union Nat'l Exec. Bd.
| Decision Date | 02 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 19-62687-Civ-Scola |
| Parties | Charles Murdock, Plaintiff, v. American Maritime Officers Union National Executive Board and Paul Doell, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
ORDER ON MOTION TO REOPEN AND FILE SUPPLEMENTAL COMPLAINT
This matter is before the Court upon the Plaintiff Charles Murdock's motion to reopen and motion for leave to file a first supplemental complaint (ECF No. 47.) The Defendants opposed the motion (ECF No. 50), and the Plaintiff filed a reply in support (ECF No. 53). For the reasons set forth below, the Court grants the Plaintiff's motion to reopen the case and grants in part the motion for leave to file a first supplemental complaint. (ECF No. 47.)
While lacking the same stylized savagery, Murdock's allegations against his union colleagues could be summed up as Father Barry summed up the union bosses' violence in On the Waterfront-“that's a crucifixion.” Indeed, Murdock alleges that the Defendants “stripped” him of his title and duties “smeared” him with “unsourced conspiracy theories, ” sought to “wrongfully arrest[]” him, and ultimately “rigged” an election to force him out. (See ECF No. 47-1 at ¶¶ 15, 29, 119, 129.) Rhetoric aside, Murdock alleges that since 2018, Paul Doell, the American Maritime Officers Union's National President, has targeted Murdock and campaigned to remove him from the Union. (ECF No. 47-1 at ¶¶ 2, 14-95.) Murdock was the elected Secretary-Treasurer of the Union; he was first elected in 2015, re-elected in 2018, but removed in June 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 1, 96-97.)
While the parties are familiar with the facts, the Court will briefly review the facts as alleged in Murdock's supplemental complaint. Murdock's and Doell's disagreements, as two elected officers in the Union, go back to 2015. (Id. at ¶ 14.) But it was not until 2018 that Doell “stripped” Murdock of many of his constitutionally-defined duties, [1] justifying these actions on false statements concerning Murdock's job performance. (Id. at ¶¶ 15-16.) Following his 2018 re-election, Murdock filed a resolution and formal request to reinstate his authority, but Doell, after initially stonewalling, gave Murdock twenty minutes to make his case before the National Executive Committee, [2] which then denied the request. (Id. at ¶¶ 19-24.)
While Murdock sought to reinstate his authority, Doell campaigned to “smear” Murdock. Doell issued statements that called into question the legitimacy of Murdock's 2018 re-election. (Id. at ¶¶ 27-29.) Doell proceeded to cut Murdock's compensation, restrict his physical and remote access to some Union property, prohibit the sharing of information with Murdock, and exclude Murdock from important correspondences. (Id. at ¶ 30.) Doell also went so far as to investigate a non-profit with which Murdock is actively involved. (Id. at ¶¶ 31-35.)
In light of the above, Murdock filed the current suit on October 28, 2019. (Id. at ¶ 36.) Shortly after, Murdock sought to share information concerning the suit with Union members, including by distributing copies of the complaint at a meeting in early November 2019. (Id. at ¶¶ 37-38.) At the meeting, Doell's assistant removed a box of the complaints, which prompted Murdock to follow the assistant and retrieve his box. (Id. at ¶¶ 39-40.) Doell and his assistant accused Murdock of grabbing the assistant in the process. (Id. at ¶¶ 41-47.) Doell called the police, and two sheriff's deputies arrived that night to investigate, although Murdock was not arrested or charged. (Id. at ¶¶ 43-45, 49.) Nonetheless, in December 2019, Doell's assistant filed “Charges and Specifications” against Murdock with the Union, alleging that Murdock “assaulted, battered and injured her” the previous month when he retrieved his box from her. (Id. at ¶ 46.)
The facts alleged in Murdock's initial and first amended complaint end in December 2019. (ECF Nos. 1, 13.) However, Murdock now adds supplemental allegations concerning events that have transpired since December 2019.
In February 2020, a Union trial committee found Murdock guilty on charges of assault and recommended that he be removed as a member. (ECF No. 47-1 at ¶ 55.) However, this decision was rejected by a majority of the Union members present at the March 2020 meeting. (Id. at ¶ 56.)
In May 2020, Murdock filed impeachment charges against Doell and the members of the National Executive Board (the “Board”) (Mike Finnigan, Daniel Robichaux, Christian Spain, John Clemons, and Joseph Gremelsbacker).
(Id. at ¶ 57.) A rotating trial committee of either two or three members (all from the Board) heard the impeachment charges and acquitted each. (Id. at ¶¶ 59-62.)
Even more impeachment charges followed in January 2021, when Robichaux filed charges against Murdock for nonfeasance, in alleged retaliation for Murdock's earlier speech detailed above. (Id. at ¶¶ 63-65.) Murdock's impeachment trial was held in March 2021, and the trial committee was comprised of Spain, Finnigan, and Clemons. (Id. at ¶ 69.) At trial, Murdock was in effect denied his counsel, and the trial committee refused to consider or order the production of certain financial records. (Id. at ¶ 70.) Moreover, Murdock alleges that the trial committee was biased-not only was the trial committee composed of individuals against whom Murdock had earlier filed impeachment charges, but some members of the trial committee communicated with Murdock's witnesses ex parte before the hearing. (Id. at ¶ 72.)
Murdock in particular believes that Clemons's bias was clear. Two months after the trial, Clemons wrote to Murdock, saying that Murdock was “caus[ing] chaos” and complaining that the National Executive Committee “ha[s] to hear your belly aching.” (Id. at ¶ 72, Ex. B.) Clemons determined that Murdock was “a piece of fucking shit” and concluded his e-mail by telling Murdock, “fuck you and the horse you ro[de] in on.” (Id. at Ex. B.)
Murdock was ultimately found guilty, and the Board affirmed the decision to impeach and dismiss Murdock as Secretary-Treasurer. (Id. at ¶¶ 74, 77.) However, as in Murdock's first adverse trial, a vote of the Union members is necessary to ratify any decision. Per the Union's constitution, the member ratification vote is required to take place at the next monthly Union meeting, which due to COVID restrictions was not scheduled to take place until June 7, 2021 at the Union headquarters. (Id. at ¶¶ 78-82.)
Later, Doell cancelled the June 7 membership meeting, citing COVID concerns. (Id. at ¶ 84.) Nonetheless, Murdock and other Union members allegedly constituting a quorum met on June 7, 2021 and took a vote that rejected ratification of Murdock's impeachment. (Id. at ¶ 91.) Doell and the Board in turn rejected the June 7 vote and created a remote ratification process to occur on June 30, 2021. (Id. at ¶¶ 92, 94, 96.) The Union members ratified the trial decision through the June 30, 2021 vote, and, as a consequence, Murdock has been removed from office and barred from holding office again. (Id. at ¶¶ 96-97.)
Murdock's motion for leave to file a supplemental complaint is subject to the discretion of the Court. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d). A court may deny leave to supplement where the supplement would be futile. See Campbell v. City of Trussville, No. 2:19-cv-01739-CLM, 2021 WL 1610617, at *4 (N.D. Ala. Apr. 26, 2021) (citing Laurie v. Ala. Court of Crim. Appeals, 256 F.3d 1266, 1274 (11th Cir. 2001)). Supplemental pleadings are futile where the pleadings are “subject to dismissal.” Hall v. United Ins. Co. of Am., 367 F.3d 1255, 1262-63 (11th Cir. 2004)). Therefore, courts generally hold that where supplemental pleadings fail to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6), those pleadings are futile. See In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec. Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1434 (3d Cir. 1997); Glassman v. Computervision Corp., 90 F.3d 617, 623 (1st Cir. 1996) (citing 3 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 15.08[4], at 15-81).
Both parties treated this motion as a motion to dismiss the entire complaint. (ECF No. 50 at 3; ECF No. 53 at 4.) Therefore, the Court will review the sufficiency of the complaint as supplemented under Rule 12(b)(6).
As proposed in the supplemental complaint, Plaintiff brings nine causes of action, including seven claims under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29 U.S.C. § 411, and two breach-of-contract claims. Before the Court walks through each claim, a brief summary of Title I of the LMRDA, 29 U.S.C. § 411, would be helpful.
Title I is often called the “Bill of Rights of Members of Labor Organizations.” See Sheet Metal Workers' Int'l Ass'n v. Lynn, 488 U.S. 347, 352 (1989). Indeed, Congress intended it to provide union members with rights “paralleling certain rights guaranteed by the Federal Constitution.” Id. In essence, the gravamen of the statute is straightforward-“ensuring that unions are democratically governed and responsive to the will of their memberships.” Id. (cleaned up). For this reason, the rights guaranteed by Title I seek to protect “rank-and-file members-not union officers or employees.” Finnegan v. Leu, 456 U.S. 431 436-37 (1982). Moreover, as much as Title I seeks to ensure a vibrant democracy within unions, Section 411 was also enacted with deference to the “well established[] policy against government interference with the internal affairs of unions.” Dolan v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., 746 F.2d 733, 739-40 (11th Cir. 1984); Ackley v. W. Conference of Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 1475 (9th Cir. 1992) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial