Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union

Decision Date02 September 2016
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 14-378 (JEB)
Citation206 F.Supp.3d 202
Parties Janice MURRAY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, Defendant.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Columbia

Robert W. Hesselbacher, Jr., Jason R. Potter, Paul F. Evelius, Wright, Constable & Skeen, LLP, Baltimore, MD, for Plaintiffs.

Darin Matthew Dalmat, Kathy L. Krieger, Steven K. Hoffman, James & Hoffman, P.C., Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

JAMES E. BOASBERG, United States District Judge

"Courts do not usually raise claims or arguments on their own. But federal courts have an independent obligation to ensure that they do not exceed the scope of their jurisdiction, and therefore they must raise and decide jurisdictional questions that the parties either overlook or elect not to press." Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki , 562 U.S. 428, 434, 131 S.Ct. 1197, 179 L.Ed.2d 159 (2011). And so, despite all of the ink spilled to date in multiple prior Opinions, the Court now finds itself questioning its subject-matter jurisdiction in this long-running labor dispute.

The nub of the case concerns a contested union-officer election held by Local 1300 of the Amalgamated Transit Union in June 2013. Plaintiffs Janice Murray and Tim (Alnett) Queen ran for President and Vice President respectively and won the election. The disappointed runner up for presidency, incumbent David McClure, challenged these results. He argued that Murray and Queen were not "in good standing" with the Union—a requirement under the ATU Constitution to be eligible for office—because they both owed outstanding debts to the Union. The ATU ultimately agreed that such debts rendered them ineligible for office and thus invalidated the election, causing the Local to hold a re-run election, which McClure won. Plaintiffs then sued the ATU for violating the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA) and for breaching their contract rights under the ATU Constitution. They requested a range of remedies that included reinstatement as duly elected officers, a declaration of invalidity regarding the ATU's decision and the subsequent rerun election, and damages for wages lost, emotional distress, and reputational harm.

The suit has now proceeded through a motion for a temporary restraining order, a motion for a preliminary injunction, two periods of discovery, two summary-judgment motions, and one reconsideration motion. On resolving the most recent round, the Court observed potential jurisdictional defects in the suit—an issue that might well have saved considerable time and money had it been raised at the outset. As "[f]ederal courts are courts of limited subject-matter jurisdiction," this Court must assure itself through all stages of the litigation that it has such jurisdiction "even if the parties ... are willing to assume it." Al – Zahrani v. Rodriguez , 669 F.3d 315, 317 (D.C.Cir.2012). The Court raised the jurisdictional question with the parties and permitted Defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss, which is now ripe. Concluding that Congress has not given federal courts jurisdiction over a dispute such as this one, the Court will grant Defendant's Motion and dismiss the case.

I. Background

The particulars of this dispute are not tremendously important in resolving the jurisdictional question posed here. A few key facts will do the trick, and the reader may refer to the Court's second summary-judgment decision for a more thorough treatment of the case's factual and procedural backdrop. See Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union (Murray III ), No. 14–378, 183 F.Supp.3d 6, 2016 WL 1664775 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2016).

The dispute centers on Local 1300's triennial election of officers (and, at least for some positions, ex officio delegates to the national ATU Convention) in which Murray and Queen ran together for President and Vice President and won the vote. Murray III , 183 F.Supp.3d at 7–8, 10–11, 2016 WL 1664775, at *1, 4. David McClure, Local 1300's President from 2007 to 2013, also ran for President but came in second. Id. at 7–9, 2016 WL 1664775, at *1–2. Dissatisfied with the outcome, and believing that neither Murray nor Queen was eligible to run for office, McClure challenged the election, going first to the Local. He argued that because both Plaintiffs had failed to pay an outstanding debt to the Union of $175.50 (for travel reimbursements that they should not have received), they were not members "in good standing" and thus could not properly run for office under rules established by the ATU Constitution. See id. at 10–11, 2016 WL 1664775, at *4 ; ATU Const., § 14.2 (good-standing requirement); id. , § 21.9 (specifying that member is no longer in "good standing" when she fails to pay dues or any other "monies owed the Union" and the arrearage continues for a period of time).

Local 1300 denied McClure's challenge. Murray III , 183 F.Supp. at 10–11, 2016 WL 1664775, at *4. He then appealed to the ATU, filing a letter with its President, Larry Hanley, in August 2013. Id. After conducting an investigation, Hanley issued a decision in February 2014 concluding that Murray and Queen both failed the "good standing" requirement and thus had been, at the time of the June 2013 election, ineligible to run for office. Id. That conclusion invalidated the June 2013 election results, stripped Plaintiffs of their offices, and necessitated that the Local hold a re-run election in early 2014, which McClure won. Id. Hanley took no other allegedly "disciplinary" action against them.

Plaintiffs filed suit here shortly thereafter in March 2014 against both the ATU and Local 1300. The Court denied their motion for a temporary restraining order—in which they primarily sought to invalidate the rerun election—on March 18, 2014. See Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union (Murray I ), No. 14–378, 2014 WL 11281392, at *5 (D.D.C. Dec. 19, 2014) (first summary-judgment Opinion). Plaintiffs then filed an Amended Complaint that included only two counts asserted against the ATU.

Count I alleges a violation of Title I of the LMRDA. Section 101(a)(5) of that statute, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5), prohibits "labor organization[s]" from "fin [ing], suspend[ing], expel[ling], or otherwise disciplin[ing]" its members, "except for nonpayment of dues," without providing notice and a hearing. Plaintiffs contend that Hanley's February 2014 decision constitutes "discipline [ against] Murray and Queen by deeming them to be ... members not in good standing and ineligible to run for Local officer positions." Am. Compl., ¶ 37. In Count II, Plaintiffs claim that Defendant breached its contractual duties under the ATU Constitution by improperly deeming them ineligible for office, thereby stating a claim under either state contract law or § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. While both counts were thus pled under distinct sources of law, each was tethered to the question of whether the ATU had improperly vacated the election results on account of Plaintiffs' outstanding debts and wrongly deemed Plaintiffs ineligible to participate in the rerun election.

Defendant declined to file a motion to dismiss, and in summer 2014 the parties filed early-stage cross-motions for summary judgment, focusing on the merits of the dispute and Plaintiffs' eligibility for office. The Court denied both cross-motions in December 2014. See Murray I , 2014 WL 11281392, at *9–13. Plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration, which the Court denied in April 2014. See Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union (Murray II ), 99 F.Supp.3d 149, 158 (D.D.C.2015). After discovery, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment targeted at both liability and damages. The Court granted in part and denied in part that motion in April 2016, eliminating Plaintiff's request for punitive damages but otherwise concluding that genuine issues of fact precluded the award of summary judgment in Defendant's favor. See Murray III , 183 F.Supp. at 12–22, 2016 WL 1664775, at *6–14.

During consideration of this last motion, however, the Court developed a concern about its authority to hear the case. It issued an Order on May 2, 2016, in which it asked the parties whether section 403 of LMRDA's Title IV—which provides as the "exclusive" "remedy ... for challenging an election already conducted" a complaint to the Secretary of Labor, see 29 U.S.C. § 483 —stripped the Court of subject-matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's suit. See ECF No. 64 (Order of May 2, 2016). After holding a hearing on May 12, 2016, the Court gave Defendant leave to file a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Minute Order of May 12, 2016. That briefing is now complete.

II. Legal Standard

Federal courts possess only limited subject-matter jurisdiction, and "[i]t is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction." Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). "If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Where, as here, the Court is "faced with what a party characterizes as a Rule 12(h)(3) motion, [it] should treat the motion as a traditional Rule 12(b)(1) motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction." Harbury v. Hayden , 444 F.Supp.2d 19, 26 (D.D.C.2006) (citing Haase v. Sessions , 835 F.2d 902, 905–06 (D.C.Cir.1987) ). In so doing, the Court "is not limited to the allegations of the complaint," 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), but "may consider materials outside the pleadings in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction." Jerome Stevens Pharm., Inc. v. FDA , 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C.Cir.2005). "[P]laintiffs are not limited to evidence that...

To continue reading

Request your trial
13 cases
  • Davidson v. U.S. Dep't of State
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • September 2, 2016
  • Ross v. Haw. Nurses' Ass'n Office & Prof'l Emps. Int'l Union Local 50
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Hawaii
    • February 12, 2018
    ...), it is significant that Plaintiffs' action raises the eligibility of candidates for a union election. See Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union , 206 F.Supp.3d 202, 211 (D.D.C. 2016) (analyzing the meaning of footnote 16 in Crowley , and concluding that a challenge to a candidate's eligibil......
  • Hunter v. Serv. Emps. Int'l Union
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois
    • March 21, 2019
    ...the damages plaintiff sought "effectively challenge[d] the validity of the election already conducted"); Murray v. Amalgamated Transit Union, 206 F. Supp. 3d 202, 211 (D.D.C. 2016), amended in part, 220 F. Supp. 3d 72 (D.D.C. 2016), and aff'd, 719 F. App'x. 5 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (determining t......
  • S. Poverty Law Ctr. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
    • June 2, 2022
    ...motion is subject to the same standards as a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Murray v. Amalgamated Trans. Union , 206 F. Supp. 3d 202, 207 (D.D.C. 2016). To survive a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the c......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT