Noble v. Nat'l Ass'n of Letters Carriers

• Decision Date: 13 December 2022
• Docket Number: 22-cv-1613 (DLF)
• Parties: DAVID W. NOBLE, Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

DAVID W. NOBLE, Plaintiff,
v.
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF LETTER CARRIERS, AFL-CIO, et al., Defendants.

No. 22-cv-1613 (DLF)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

December 13, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DABNEY L. FRIEDRICH United States District Judge

David Noble brings this suit under the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) against the National Association of Letter Carriers (NALC), a labor union of which he is a member, and the union's local branches 421 and 9. Am. Compl. ¶ 4, Dkt. 4. He seeks a declaratory judgment and injunction requiring the defendants to sell him space for campaign advertisements in the union's monthly magazine and branch newsletters. Id. ¶¶ 1, 18. Before the Court is the defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 19. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.

I. BACKGROUND

NALC is a national labor union with approximately 280,000 members. Id. ¶¶ 1, 10. NALC members elect union officers every four years. Id. ¶ 5. Noble ran for union president in the 2014, 2018, and 2022 elections. Id. ¶¶ 5, 7. He campaigned primarily online, and he estimates that through this medium he reached about 10% of the union members. Id. ¶¶ 5, 9.

Leading up to the most recent election, on December 18, 2021, Noble emailed NALC President Fred Rolando and lawyer Peter D. DeChiara stating that he would like to begin running

1

political advertisements in the Postal Record, NALC's monthly union magazine, beginning in February. Id. ¶ 12; Compl. Ex. A, Dkt. 1-1. On December 29, 2021, DeChiara emailed Noble to inform him that “[i]n accordance with longstanding NALC policy, NALC does not run political ads in the Postal Record, with the exception of one issue every four years, preceding the NALC national officer elections.” Compl. Ex. B, Dkt. 1-1; see Am. Compl. ¶ 13. In January 2022, Noble made a similar request of Branch 421, which it denied in March. Am. Compl. ¶ 15; Compl. Ex. C, Dkt. 1-1. In May 2022, he made the same request of Branch 9, to which Branch 9 did not respond. Am. Compl. ¶ 15.

Noble filed this suit on June 7, 2022. Compl., Dkt. 1. On June 17, 2022, Noble filed an amended complaint and a motion for a preliminary injunction to compel the defendants to sell him space for advertisements in the Postal Record and the branch newsletters before the 2022 election. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. at 1-2, Dkt. 5. On July 11, 2022, the Court denied Noble's motion for a preliminary injunction. Order, Dkt. 17. The Court first concluded that venue was not proper in the District of Columbia for the claims brought against the two local branches. Tr. of Mot. Hr'g at 5. As for the claims against NALC, the Court held that a preliminary injunction was not warranted because Noble was unlikely to succeed on the merits. Id. at 10-12. The Court further concluded that it was unclear that Noble would suffer irreparable injury in the absence of a preliminary injunction, and that the equities and public interest did not clearly weigh in his favor. Id. at 12-13.

On August 5, 2022, the defendants moved to dismiss Noble's amended complaint. Dkt. 19. As to the claims against the local branches, they moved to dismiss due to improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and failure to state a claim under Rule

2

12(b)(6). Defs.' Mem. at 5-6, Dkt. 19. As to NALC, they moved to dismiss for mootness under Rule 12(b)(1) and failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6). Id. at 6-11.

II. LEGAL STANDARDS

Under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party may move to dismiss an action or claim when the court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1). A motion to dismiss for mootness is properly brought under Rule 12(b)(1) because “mootness itself deprives the court ofjurisdiction.” Indian River Cnty. v. Rogoff, 254 F.Supp.3d 15, 18-19 (D.D.C. 2017). “Federal courts lack jurisdiction to decide moot cases because their constitutional authority extends only to actual cases or controversies.” Conservation Force, Inc. v. Jewell, 733 F.3d 1200, 1204 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quoting Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464 U.S. 67, 70 (1983)); see also U.S. Const. art. III, § 2. “When ruling on a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the court must treat the complaint's factual allegations as true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Jeong Seon Han v. Lynch, 223 F.Supp.3d 95, 103 (D.D.C. 2016) (quotation marks and citation omitted). But unlike in the Rule 12(b)(6) context, a court may consider documents outside the pleadings to evaluate whether it has jurisdiction. See Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

Next, Rule 12(b)(3) “instructs the court to dismiss or transfer a case if venue is improper or inconvenient in the plaintiff's chosen forum.” Sanchez ex rel. Rivera-Sanchez v. United States, 600 F.Supp.2d 19, 21 (D.D.C. 2009). The Court accepts the plaintiff's well-pleaded allegations regarding venue as true and draws reasonable inferences from those allegations in favor of the plaintiff. See Abraham v. Burwell, 110 F.Supp.3d 25, 28 (D.D.C. 2015). “The court need not, however, accept the plaintiff's legal conclusions as true, and may consider material outside of the pleadings.” Id. (citation omitted). “The plaintiff has the burden to establish that venue is proper

3

since it is his obligation to institute the action in a permissible forum.” Sanchez-Mercedes v. Bureau of Prisons, 453 F.Supp.3d 404, 414 (D.D.C. 2020) (quotation marks omitted), aff'd, 2021 WL 2525679 (D.C. Cir. June 2, 2021).

Finally, Rule 12(b)(6) allows a defendant to move to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, a complaint must contain factual matter sufficient to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). A facially plausible claim is one that “allows the court to draw the reasonable inference...