Teamsters Nat. Auto. Transporters Ind. v. Troha

• Decision Date: 29 April 2003
• Docket Number: No. 02-3103.,02-3103.
• Citation: 328 F.3d 325
• Parties: TEAMSTERS NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORTERS INDUSTRY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, a labor organization, and Teamsters Local Union 745, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dennis M. TROHA, Chairman and CEO of JHT Holdings, Incorporated, JHT Holdings, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, and Active Transportation Company, a Kentucky limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Seventh Circuit

328 F.3d 325

TEAMSTERS NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE TRANSPORTERS INDUSTRY NEGOTIATING COMMITTEE, a labor organization, and Teamsters Local Union 745, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Dennis M. TROHA, Chairman and CEO of JHT Holdings, Incorporated, JHT Holdings, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, and Active Transportation Company, a Kentucky limited liability company, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-3103.

United States Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit.

Argued February 19, 2003.

Decided April 29, 2003.

Rehearing and Rehearing En Banc Denied May 28, 2003.

James F. Wallington (argued), Baptiste & Wilder, Washington, DC, for Plaintiffs-Appellants.

Jeffrey P. Clark (argued), Reinhart, Boerner, Van Deuren, Norris & Rieselbach, Milwaukee, WI, C. John Holmquist, Jr., Dickinson Wright, Bloomfield Hills, MI, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before FLAUM, Chief Judge, and COFFEY and KANNE, Circuit Judges.

FLAUM, Chief Judge.

The Teamsters Automobile Transporters Industry National Negotiating Committee and Teamsters Local Union 745 (collectively "the Teamsters") brought an action to enforce an arbitration subpoena against JHT Holdings, Inc. ("JHT"), and its Chairman and CEO, Dennis Troha,¹ neither of whom are signatories to the collective bargaining agreement that forms the basis of the underlying arbitration. The district court, concluding that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, dismissed the action, and the Teamsters appeal. We are presented with the question of whether a federal cause of action exists to enforce an arbitration subpoena against parties who were not signatories to the collective bargaining agreement that forms the basis for the arbitration. Because we find that a cause of action to enforce the subpoena does exist under federal common law, the district court had federal question jurisdiction over this suit. We therefore reverse the judgment of the district court.

I. Background

Active Transportation Company and its subsidiary Active USA, Inc. (collectively "Active") operate a terminal in Garland, Texas. The Teamsters are the bargaining representatives for certain employees at Active's Garland terminal. The Teamsters and Active are signatories to the National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement and the Work Preservation Agreement (collectively "the bargaining agreements"). The Teamsters allege that on September 29, 2001, Active breached these bargaining agreements. The breach allegedly occurred when Active transferred work, previously performed at the terminal in Garland, to Auto Truck Transport Corporation ("Auto Truck"). According to the Teamsters this was an unauthorized transfer prohibited by the bargaining agreements. Pursuant to the rules set forth in the agreements, the Teamsters filed a grievance with a three-member Board of Arbitration.

The grievance, as would be expected, was filed against Active, the signatory of the bargaining agreements. But there are other parties involved. It seems that Active and Auto Truck are more than just business partners. In fact they share the same majority owner, Mr. Troha. Mr. Troha is also the Chairmen and CEO of JHT, which the Teamsters claim is a controlled affiliate of both Auto Truck and Active. Recognizing the involvement of these parties and seeking to resolve this dispute, the arbitration board issued a subpoena to Mr. Troha and JHT directing Mr. Troha to appear and testify as well as directing both Mr. Troha and JHT to produce numerous documents. Neither Mr. Troha nor JHT complied with the subpoena. On May 20, 2002, the Teamsters brought this action to enforce the subpoena. The district court concluded that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because Mr. Troha and JHT were non-signatories to the underlying bargaining agreement. The district court dismissed the action, and the Teamsters appeal that ruling.

II. Discussion

Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and may only exercise jurisdiction where it is specifically authorized by federal statute. Recognizing this principle, the Teamsters turn to § 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185, in an attempt to establish the authority for federal subject matter jurisdiction.² Still it is not clear from the briefs whether the Teamsters are attempting to establish jurisdiction directly under § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act, which provides that

[s]uits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this Act, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties,

or indirectly under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides that

[t]he district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States,

or under both.³ This ambiguity is somewhat excusable given the fact that specific statutory grants of jurisdiction over federal causes of action are often largely superfluous given that the grant under § 1331 includes all civil actions where a federal law creates a federal cause of action. Franchise Tax Bd. of Cal. v. Constr. Laborers Vacation Trust For Southern Cal., 463 U.S. 1, 8-9, 103 S.Ct. 2841, 77 L.Ed.2d 420 (1983). Still, the provisions are nonetheless distinct sources under which a party may seek to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See, e.g., Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., Avco Corp. v. UAW, 523 U.S. 653, 655 n. 1, 118 S.Ct. 1626, 140 L.Ed.2d 863 (1998) (holding that plaintiff was limited to arguing for jurisdiction under § 301 because Petition for Certiorari contained no reference to 28 U.S.C. § 1331). The distinction can be especially relevant where a party asserts jurisdiction under § 301 and not under § 1331. Specific jurisdictional provisions like § 301 are grants of jurisdiction over cases where the plaintiff is pressing a particular federal cause of action—in the § 301 context, causes of action brought "for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization." § 1331 jurisdiction, on the other hand, includes most causes of action, state or federal, where the plaintiff's right to relief necessarily depends on the resolution of a substantial federal question. Franchise Tax Bd., 463 U.S. at 27-28, 103 S.Ct. 2841.⁴ Seeking to establish jurisdiction under § 301 alone and not under § 1331 may therefore limit a party to arguing that they are bringing a suit for violation of a collective bargaining agreement. For example, in Textron the Supreme Court rejected plaintiff's argument that "what would suffice to sustain a declaratory judgment action premised on § 1331 federal-question jurisdiction would suffice to sustain a declaratory judgment action brought under § 301(a)" because "the language of the two provisions is quite different." 523 U.S. at 660, 118 S.Ct. 1626. The Court explained: "Whereas § 1331 authorizes `civil actions arising under the ... laws ... of the United States'... § 301 authorizes only `suits for violations of contracts.'" Id. All this being said, because of the inherent overlap in the provisions, we will construe the Teamsters' brief as asserting jurisdiction under both provisions.

We can dispense with the claim that jurisdiction exists under § 301 quickly. The § 301 grant of jurisdiction is extremely limited. The Supreme Court's holding in Textron emphasizes this narrowness. The plaintiffs in that suit sought a declaration that a contract was invalid. Relying on the specific statutory language of § 301, the Textron Court explained, "By its terms, this provision confers federal subject-matter jurisdiction only over `suits for violations of contracts.'" Id. at 656, 118 S.Ct. 1626. The Court reasoned that the phrase "for violations of contracts" encompassed only suits "filed because a contract has been violated" and therefore did not include "suits that claim a contract is invalid." Id. at 657, 118 S.Ct. 1626. The Court concluded that "[b]ecause the Union's complaint alleges no violation of the collective bargaining agreement, neither we nor the federal courts below have subject-matter jurisdiction over this case under § 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act." Id. at 661, 118 S.Ct. 1626. The holding of Textron is that only cases that allege violations of the collective bargaining agreement fall under the jurisdictional grant of § 301. Since only parties to a contract can violate it, a plaintiff cannot possibly allege that a non-party violated a collective bargaining agreement; therefore, the plaintiff cannot assert jurisdiction under § 301 to bring a federal action against the non-party.⁵

The question of § 1331 jurisdiction is more challenging. The first question for us to address is whether the plaintiffs are asserting a federal cause of action. If the plaintiffs are asserting such a cause of action then § 1331 plainly creates jurisdiction because the suit would arise under federal law. This question is complicated because the Supreme Court has determined that § 301, beyond expressly authorizing the federal courts to hear suits brought for violations of collective bargaining agreements, also authorizes the federal courts to fashion a body of common law for the enforcement of the collective bargaining agreements over which they have jurisdiction. Textile Workers Union of Am. v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U.S. 448, 77 S.Ct. 912, 1 L.Ed.2d 972 (1957). In general we have viewed this authorization to create federal law under § 301 as limited to disputes between signatories of the collective bargaining agreement. See Loss v. Blankenship, 673 F.2d 942, 948 (7th Cir.1982) ("We hold, therefore, that a complaint for interference with a collective bargaining agreement, against a non-party to that agreement, is not actionable under § 301(a) of the LMRA."), and at 946 ("`§ 301 suits...