Trustees of Oper. Eng. Pen. Trust v. Tab Contract.

• Decision Date: 27 September 2002
• Docket Number: No. CIV-S-01-1258 PMP PA.,CIV-S-01-1258 PMP PA.
• Citation: 224 F.Supp.2d 1272
• Parties: TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST; Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund; Trustees of the Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Fund and Trustees of the Operating Engineers Journeyman Apprenticeship Training Trust, Plaintiffs, v. TAB CONTRACTORS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; Does I through X, inclusive, Defendants. Tab Contractors, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, an unincorporated association; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, an unincorporated association; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 525, an unincorporated association; Trustees of the Local 525 Health and Welfare Fund; Trustees of the Local 525 Pension and Retirement Plan; Trustees of the National Pension Fund; Trustees of the Las Vegas Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund; Trustees of the Contract Administration Fund, Third Party Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nevada

224 F.Supp.2d 1272

TRUSTEES OF THE OPERATING ENGINEERS PENSION TRUST; Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund; Trustees of the Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Fund and Trustees of the Operating Engineers Journeyman Apprenticeship Training Trust, Plaintiffs, v. TAB CONTRACTORS, INC., a Nevada Corporation; Does I through X, inclusive, Defendants.

Tab Contractors, Inc., a Nevada Corporation, Third Party Plaintiff, v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12, an unincorporated association; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, an

unincorporated association; United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 525, an unincorporated association; Trustees of the Local 525 Health and Welfare Fund; Trustees of the Local 525 Pension and Retirement Plan; Trustees of the National Pension Fund; Trustees of the Las Vegas Joint Apprenticeship and Training Fund; Trustees of the Contract Administration Fund, Third Party Defendants.

No. CIV-S-01-1258 PMP PA.

United States District Court, D. Nevada.

September 27, 2002.

Michael Urban, Pasadena, CA, for Plaintiff.

Dennis Kist, Las Vegas, NV, Norman Kirshman, Las Vegas, NV, Gary Branton, Las Vegas, NV, for Defendant.

Andrew Brignone, Las Vegas, NV, Adam Segal, Las Vegas, NV, for Trustees-Las Vegas Joint Apprentice.

Patricia Waldeck, Las Vegas, NV, for United Assoc. of Journeymen & Apprentice.

ORDER

PRO, District Judge.

Presently before this Court are two motions. Third-Party Defendants Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 Health and Welfare Trust; Trustees of the Plumbers and Pipefitters Local 525 Pension Plan; and Trustees of the Las Vegas Joint Apprentice and Journeyman Training Committee (collectively "Trust Funds") filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 16) on April 18, 2002. Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff Tab Contractors, Inc. ("Tab") filed an Opposition (Doc. # 17) on April 25, 2002. The Trust Funds filed a Reply (Doc. # 19) on May 13, 2002.

Third-Party Defendant International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 12 ("Local 12") filed a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. # 18) on April 30, 2002. Tab filed an Opposition (Doc. # 20) on May 17, 2002. Local 12 filed a Reply (Doc. # 21) on June 3, 2002.

Third-Party Defendant United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 525, filed Joinder in Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings Filed by IUOE Local 12 (Doc. # 24) on July 25, 2002.

This Court held a hearing on the pending Motions on July 29, 2002.

I. BACKGROUND

The present case arises from a contract dispute. Plaintiffs Trustees of the Operating Engineers Pension Trust, Trustees of the Operating Engineers Health and Welfare Fund, Trustees of the Operating Engineers Vacation-Holiday Fund, and Trustees of the Operating Engineers Journeyman Apprenticeship Training Trust (collectively "Plaintiffs") are trustees of express trusts ("Plaintiffs' Trusts") to which Local 12 and various Southern California and Southern Nevada employer associations in the construction industry are parties. (Compl.¶ 2.) Plaintiffs allege that Tab failed to pay certain fringe benefit contributions to the Plaintiffs' Trusts despite an obligation to do so. (Compl.¶¶ 6-8.) As a result of Tab's alleged failure to pay the Trusts, Plaintiffs have brought suit against Tab for breach of contract.

Subsequent to Plaintiffs filing suit, Tab impled several Third-Party Defendants, including the Trust Funds and Local 12. (Third-Party Compl.) Tab claims that its third-party suit arises under the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq., as well as under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA"), codified at 29 U.S.C. § 1001 et seq. (Id. ¶ 1.) Tab contends that the disputed work in the present case, for which Plaintiffs claim Tab owes contributions to Plaintiffs' Trusts, was covered by more than one collective-bargaining agreement. (Id. ¶ 11.) Tab alleges that on several occasions, Tab requested that Local 12 dispatch rig-welders to perform work, but Local 12 refused to dispatch the requested rig-welders. (Id. ¶ 13-14.) Further, Tab claims that United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Local 525 ("Local 525") dispatched employees to perform the rig-welding work when Local 12 refused to dispatch workers. (Id. ¶ 15.) Tab characterizes Plaintiffs' claim for unpaid trust contributions as a request for contributions for rig-welding work performed by Local 525 when Local 12 refused to dispatch workers. (Id. ¶ 16.) Tab's Third-Party Complaint includes claims for declaratory relief, indemnification, and unjust enrichment.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

"A judgment on the pleadings [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) ] is properly granted when, taking all allegations in the pleadings as true, the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Nelson v. City of Irvine, 143 F.3d 1196, 1200 (9th Cir.1998) (citing McGann v. Ernst & Young, 102 F.3d 390, 392 (9th Cir.1996), cert. denied, 520 U.S. 1181, 117 S.Ct. 1460, 137 L.Ed.2d 564 (1997)). A motion for judgment on the pleadings brought pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c) may be brought "[a]fter the pleadings are closed but within such time as not to delay the trial ...." Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(c).

Generally, "judgment on the pleadings is improper when the district court goes beyond the pleadings to resolve an issue ...." Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner and Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1550 (9th Cir.1989). If a court does consider "matters outside the pleadings" in its determination on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, "the motion shall be treated as one for summary judgment and disposed of as provided in Rule 56 [Summary Judgment], and all parties shall be given reasonable opportunity to present all material made pertinent to such a motion by Rule 56." Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c). See also Hal Roach Studios, 896 F.2d at 1550 (holding that if, on a 12(c) motion, a court considers evidence outside the pleadings, the court should apply the summary judgment standard).

III. DISCUSSION

A. The Parties' Arguments Generally

Local 12 and the Trust Funds have brought Motions for Judgment on the Pleadings against Tab pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Local 525 has joined Local 12's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Generally, the Third-Party Defendants argue that this Court does not have jurisdiction under the LMRA or ERISA over Tab's Third-Party Complaint.

B. Jurisdiction and Standing under the LMRA

1. The Parties' Arguments

Local 12 argues that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that § 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185 et seq., is reserved for claims that a labor contract has been violated, not for declaratory relief. Thus, Local 12 argues that Tab's action for declaratory relief is improper under the LMRA. Local 12 further argues that jurisdiction under the LMRA is not proper because Tab has not alleged a contract breach claim. Additionally, Local 12 contends that jurisdictional disputes are more appropriately heard by the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") or an arbitrator, not by a federal court. Local 525 joins these arguments and also made one additional argument at the oral hearing; Local 525 asserted that Tab did not make any allegations in its Third-Party Complaint that can be construed as alleging that Local 525 breached any collective-bargaining agreement.

The Trust Funds argue that Tab cannot maintain its causes of action against the Trust Funds under the LMRA because the LMRA only provides for actions by or against labor organizations. The Trust Funds contend that they are not labor organizations under the definition in the LMRA.

In response, Tab argues that its Third-Party Complaint states an actionable claim and put Local 12 on notice of Tab's allegation that Local 12 breached its collective-bargaining agreement with Tab. Tab also asserts that § 301 of the LMRA provides federal courts with jurisdiction to hear controversies arising between labor and management. In the event that this Court does not find it has jurisdiction to hear Tab's claims, Tab asks for leave to amend its Third-Party Complaint to clarify its allegation that Local 12 breached its collective-bargaining agreement with Tab.

B. Standing Under the LMRA

Tab asserts that this Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate the present dispute based in part on the LMRA. According to the LMRA:

Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, 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.

29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Thus, jurisdiction in this Court is proper under the LMRA if two main requirements are met. First, the suit must be "for [a] violation of [a] contract[]." Id. See also Textron Lycoming Reciprocating Engine Div., AVCO Corp. v. United Auto., Aerospace & Agric. Implement Workers of Am., et al., 523 U.S. 653, 657, 118 S.Ct. 1626, 140 L.Ed.2d 863 (1998) ("`Suits for violation of contracts' under § 301(a) are ... suits that claim a contract has been violated.") (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 185(a)). Second, the suit must involve "an employer and a labor organization ...." 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). For reasons discussed herein, this Court finds that the requirement that the suit be "for [a] violation of [a] contract[]" may be met if Tab amends its Third-Party Complaint. However, this Court also finds that the requirement...