Overnite Transp. v. Intern. Broth. of Teamsters
| Decision Date | 27 February 2001 |
| Docket Number | No. 2:00CV3109.,No. 1:00CV1023.,2:00CV3109.,1:00CV1023. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Tennessee |
| Parties | OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et al. Combs, Inc., Defendants. |
Stephen L. Shields, Robin H. Rasmussen, Jackson Shields Yeiser & Cantrell, Cordova, TN, Kenneth T. Lopatka, Craig R. Thortenson, Jeffrey L. Madoff, Matkov Salzman Madoff & Gunn, Chicago, IL, for plaintiff.
Jodi Trulove, Steven J. Roman, Woody N. Peterson, Erica J. Dominitz, Dickstein Shapiro Morin & Oshinsky, Washington, DC., Samuel Morris, Allen Godwin Morris Laurenzi & Bloomfield, P.C., Memphis, TN, for defendants.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS; AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE MATERIAL FROM PLAINTIFF'S SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Defendants; the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of American, AFL-CIO ("IBT"); James P. Hoffa; C. Thomas Keegel; Randy Cammack; Fred Gegare; Chester Glanton; Thomas R. O'Donnell; Ralph J. Taurone; Patrick W. Flynn; Walter Lytle; Dotty Malinsky; Lester A. Singer; Philip E. Young; Jack Cipriani; John Murphy; Dan DeSanti; Richard Volpe; Ken Wood; Charlie Gardner; Chuck Mack; Jon L. Rabine; W. James Santangelo; Jose E. Cadiz; Ron McClain; John Steger; David Cameron; Robert Kruezer; John R. Cuite; Robert Kirkpatrick; and Robert Ramshaw moved to dismiss, transfer, and strike Plaintiffs, Overnite Transportation Company's ("Overnite"), second amended complaint alleging violations of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961-1968 (1994), Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organization ("RICO"); tortious interference with Plaintiff's business; tortious interference with Plaintiff's employment relations; and malicious destruction of property. Judge Todd in the Western District of Tennessee, Eastern Division, denied Defendants' motion to transfer the case to the District of Columbia, but transferred the case to this Court in the Western Division.
For the following reasons, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss all of the predicate acts asserting violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1951 (1994), the Hobbs Act; 18 U.S.C. § 1952 (1994), the Travel Act; state criminal extortion statutes; and state criminal assault statutes, without prejudice. Further, the Court grants Defendants' motion to dismiss Plaintiffs claims of tortious interference with business relations, tortious interference with employment relations, and malicious destruction of property. The Court denies Defendants' motion to dismiss those predicate acts sufficiently pleading attempted murder. The Court grants Defendants' motion to strike paragraphs 33-37 and 78-81 from the second amended complaint.
Overnite is a Virginia corporation duly registered and qualified to do business in Tennessee. Overnite is a common carrier engaged in the interstate transportation of freight by motor vehicle. Presently, Overnite has two service centers in the Western District of Tennessee, one in Jackson and one in Memphis. Overnite employs roughly 13,000 individuals.
Defendant, the IBT, is a voluntary, unincorporated association commonly known as a labor union. The IBT maintains a principal office in Washington, D.C. and transacts its affairs throughout the United States, including the Western District of Tennessee.
Defendant, Hoffa, is the general president of the IBT and maintains an office in Washington, D.C. Defendant, Keegel, is the general secretary-treasurer of the IBT and maintains an office in Washington, D.C. Defendants, Cammack, Gegare, Glanton, O'Donnell, and Taurone, are vice presidents at-large of the IBT with offices in Covina, California; Green Bay, Wisconsin; Chicago, Illinois; Lake Success, New York; and Layton, Utah, respectively. Defendants, Flynn, Lytle, Malinsky, Singer, and Young are central region vice presidents with offices in Chicago, Illinois; Fort Wayne, Indiana; Bloomington, Minnesota; Toledo Ohio; and Kansas City, Missouri, respectively. Defendants, Cipriani, Murphy, DeSanti, and Volpe are eastern region vice presidents with offices in Greensboro, North Carolina; Boston, Massachusetts; North Brunswick, New Jersey; and New Hyde Park, New York, respectively. Defendants, Wood and Gardner, are southern region vice presidents with offices in Tampa, Florida and Dallas, Texas, respectively. Defendants, Mack, Rabine, and Santangelo, are western region vice presidents with offices in Oakland, California; Seattle, Washington; and El Monte, California, respectively. Defendants, Cadiz, McClain, and Steger are trustees for the IBT with offices in San Jaun, Puerto Rico; Des Moines, Iowa; and Washington, D.C., respectively. Defendant, Cameron, is a director of communications with the IBT with an office in Arlington, Virginia. Defendants, Kruezer and Ramshaw are international organizers for the IBT with offices in O'Fallon, Missouri and Sunrise Beach, Missouri, respectively. Defendant, Cuite, is an international representative with the IBT with an office in Dix Hills, New York. Defendant, Kirkpatrick, is an international organizer for the IBT, but the second amended complaint does not specify the location of his office.
The IBT has allegedly attempted to organize Overnite's employees for fifty-four years. Overnite alleges the IBT has used intentional and criminal acts in an effort to accomplish this goal. In their second amended complaint, Plaintiff recounts alleged illicit acts on the part of the IBT against Overnite, specifically citing activity in 1945, 1957, 1977, and 1984.
As of 1994, Overnite was the largest non-union less-than-truckload ("LTL") carrier in the country.1 From that point to the present, the IBT has allegedly continued attempts to organize Overnite's employees. Overnite asserts that it has bargained continuously with the IBT, conducting 150 meetings over a period of four years. Nonetheless, of the 166 service centers throughout Overnite's system, only 22 locations have been formally and finally certified for collective bargaining with the IBT. .) This equals roughly fourteen percent of Overnite's total workforce of 13,000. At four service centers Overnite has elected to test the National Labor Relations Board's ("NLRB") certification of the IBT as Overnite's employee's bargaining representative. At four different service centers, the NLRB has ordered Overnite to bargain with the IBT on behalf of the Overnite employees working at that site, even though the employees allegedly rejected IBT representation in a secret-ballot election.
On September 21, 1995, the IBT allegedly called a meeting in Washington, D.C. to map out a new comprehensive strategy to "deal" with Overnite. At this meeting the IBT allegedly established a new nationally-coordinated bargaining committee to serve as a master team for concerted action against Overnite and to bargain for a national contract with Overnite. The IBT allegedly pledged to commit its legal, communications, research, and organizing departments to the effort. The second amended complaint asserts that the IBT also planned to set dates to call Overnite customers and characterized itself as the clearing house for all bargaining issues and positions with Overnite. Plaintiff alleges that all IBT local unions ("Locals") have deferred to the IBT's leadership in setting policy and tactics in all areas with Overnite.
On April 12, 1999, the IBT allegedly informed Overnite that the newly-elected IBT president, Hoffa, had unilaterally named a new committee for negotiating a contract with Overnite. The second amended complaint asserts that Hoffa proclaimed the Overnite situation of utmost importance to him. On May 1, 1999, Hoffa appointed Young as the director of freight operations for the IBT, its chief representative in dealing with all freight carriers, including Overnite.
In early May, 1999, Hoffa and Young allegedly held a meeting in Chicago with numerous Locals' representatives to discuss how to force Teamsters representation and a Teamsters contract on Overnite and its employees. According to the second amended complaint, the IBT and the Locals agreed to use as many as 100,000 employees working for other Teamsters-represented carriers to coerce Overnite and its employees into accepting Teamsters representation.
On May 13, 1999, Defendant, Young, allegedly sent a memorandum to all Locals, instructing them to contact and warn Overnite's customers that the IBT would calls strikes against Overnite if Overnite did not settle the contract and other disputes on favorable terms. The IBT allegedly began sending letters and e-mails to Overnite's customers, telling them that Overnite had labor troubles and threatening "labor unrest" which would delay Overnite's delivery service. According to the second amended complaint, IBT spokes-persons began declaring publicly and privately that Overnite would either be a Teamsters company by the end of the year, or the IBT would force Overnite to close its doors.
Plaintiff alleges that at some point prior to June 14, 1999, the IBT and its Locals adopted and implemented a plan to commit various tortious and criminal acts against Overnite and its employees in order to coerce Overnight and its employees to accept a Teamsters contract on the IBT's terms.
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have conducted and/or participated in the affairs of a RICO Enterprise ("RICO Enterprise"), consisting of an association-in-fact. This association-in-fact is allegedly composed of individuals, who are otherwise employed by or retired from unionized competitors of Overnite, and activists and allied groups aiding and abetting them, who have been recruited by IBT officials and agents. This RICO Enterprise...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ambellu v. Re'Ese Adbarat Debre Selam Kidist Mariam
...but even if the culprits were the Current Leaders, assault is not a RICO predicate offense. See Overnite Transp. Co. v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters , 168 F. Supp. 2d 826, 843 (W.D. Tenn. 2001) ("[a]ssault neither expressly constitutes racketeering activity ... nor falls within the generic desig......
-
Kesterson v. Kent State Univ.
...be used sparingly only when the ends of justice require it.'") (quoting Overnite Transp. Co. v. Int'l Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., AFL-CIO, 168 F. Supp. 2d 826, 850 (W.D. Tenn. 2001)). "As a general rule, courts should not strike a matter 'unless the court......
-
Smithfield Foods, Inc. v. Ufcw
...F.Supp. 1472 (E.D.Mich.1989). 6. In their reply brief, the Defendants assert that the decision in Overnite Trans. Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 168 F.Supp.2d 826 (W.D.Tenn.2001) requires a different result. Overnite is a far different case with significantly different issues, and i......
-
Vason v. State
...540 (citation omitted), the murder of the driver of that car. See Overnite Transp. Co. v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL-CIO, 168 F. Supp. 2d 826, 845 (W.D. Tenn. 2001) ("[T]hrowing a brick or rock at a truck's windshield when it is trave......