Teamsters Local 439 v. Leprino Foods Company

Filing 9

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER signed by District Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 06/07/18 GRANTING 5 Motion to Dismiss with 20 DAYS LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file an amended complaint. If no amended complaint is timely filed, this action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice upon no further notice to the parties. (Benson, A.)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 439,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:18-cv-0280-MCE-CKD

Plaintiff,
v.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

LEPRINO FOODS COMPANY,
Defendant.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

By way of this action, Plaintiff Teamsters Local 439 (“Plaintiff”) seeks to compel
Defendant Leprino Foods Company (“Defendant”) to arbitrate, pursuant to the parties’
Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”), a grievance filed by Defendant’s employee,
Rita Shah. Plaintiff contends that Defendant impermissibly awarded a foreperson
position to a fellow employee who had less seniority than Ms. Shah without first offering
her the opportunity to bid for that position. Presently before the Court is Defendant’s
Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) the Complaint on the basis that the express provisions of
the CBA exclude Plaintiff’s grievance from the agreement’s arbitration provisions. For
the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion is GRANTED with leave to amend.1
1
Because oral argument would not have been of material assistance, the Court ordered this
matter submitted on the briefs. E.D. Cal. Local Rule 230(g).

1

1

STANDARD

2
3

On a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil

4

Procedure 12(b)(6), all allegations of material fact must be accepted as true and

5

construed in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Cahill v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

6

Co., 80 F.3d 336,337-38 (9th Cir. 1996). Rule 8(a)(2) requires only “a short and plain

7

statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief” in order to “give the

8

defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Bell

9

Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41,

10

47 (1957)). A complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not require

11

detailed factual allegations. However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of

12

his entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic

13

recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. (internal citations and

14

quotations omitted). A court is not required to accept as true a “legal conclusion

15

couched as a factual allegation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009)

16

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right

17

to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (citing 5 Charles Alan

18

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1216 (3d ed. 2004) (stating

19

that the pleading must contain something more than “a statement of facts that merely

20

creates a suspicion [of] a legally cognizable right of action.”)).

21

Furthermore, “Rule 8(a)(2) . . . requires a showing, rather than a blanket

22

assertion, of entitlement to relief.” Id. at 556 n.3 (internal citations and quotations

23

omitted). Thus, “[w]ithout some factual allegation in the complaint, it is hard to see how

24

a claimant could satisfy the requirements of providing not only ‘fair notice’ of the nature

25

of the claim, but also ‘grounds’ on which the claim rests.” Id. (citing 5 Charles Alan

26

Wright & Arthur R. Miller, supra, at § 1202). A pleading must contain “only enough facts

27

to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570. If the “plaintiffs . . . have

28

not nudged their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, their complaint
2

1

must be dismissed.” Id. However, “[a] well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it

2

strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of those facts is improbable, and ‘that a recovery

3

is very remote and unlikely.’” Id. at 556 (quoting Scheuer v. Rhodes, 416 U.S. 232, 236

4

(1974)).

5

A court granting a motion to dismiss a complaint must then decide whether to

6

grant leave to amend. Leave to amend should be “freely given” where there is no

7

“undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, . . . undue prejudice

8

to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [or] futility of the

9

amendment . . . .” Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962); Eminence Capital, LLC v.

10

Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (listing the Foman factors as those to

11

be considered when deciding whether to grant leave to amend). Not all of these factors

12

merit equal weight. Rather, “the consideration of prejudice to the opposing party . . .

13

carries the greatest weight.” Id. (citing DCD Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183,

14

185 (9th Cir. 1987)). Dismissal without leave to amend is proper only if it is clear that

15

“the complaint could not be saved by any amendment.” Intri-Plex Techs. v. Crest Group,

16

Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing In re Daou Sys., Inc., 411 F.3d 1006,

17

1013 (9th Cir. 2005); Ascon Props., Inc. v. Mobil Oil Co., 866 F.2d 1149, 1160 (9th Cir.

18

1989) (“Leave need not be granted where the amendment of the complaint . . .

19

constitutes an exercise in futility . . . .”)).

20
21

ANALYSIS

22
23

Section 19(A) of the CBA (Job Bidding) provides in pertinent part as follows:

24

The working foreperson position shall be considered an
assignment rather than a job classification for purposes of
Sections 18 and 19 of this Agreement. The designation of
employees for such assignments is the exclusive right of
the Employer and is not subject to review under this
Agreement. For purposes of layoff, bumping, disqualification
or resignation of the working foreperson assignment, the
working foreperson shall be considered to have remained
within the classification previously held and reclaim his/her
3

25
26
27
28

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

previously held position, provided that position is not held by a
higher senior employee. If a higher senior employee is holding
the position or the job has been eliminated, the employee will
bump in accordance with Section 18 (D) 2.
The Employer shall consider candidates in the following
order, but the Employer shall be the sole judge both of the
employee's qualifications and of their suitability to the
position in question, and no such judgment concerning
the Employer's requirements shall be subject to the
review under any provision of the Agreement (the
Employer shall post a list to afford employees the opportunity
to indicate their interest in working foreperson assignments).

8

ECF No. 1-2 (emphasis added). Defendant contends that the express language above

9

means what it says, namely that disputes regarding “working foreperson” positions are

10

not subject to arbitration provisions included elsewhere in the CBA.

11

“[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to

12

arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.” United Steelworkers of

13

America v. Warrior & Gulf Nav. Co., 363 U.S. 574, 582 (1960).

14
15
16
17

[T]he question of arbitrability-whether a collective-bargaining
agreement creates a duty for the parties to arbitrate the
particular grievance-is undeniably an issue for judicial
determination. Unless the parties clearly and unmistakably
provide otherwise, the question of whether the parties agreed
to arbitrate is to be decided by the court, not the arbitrator.

18

AT&T Technologies, Inc. v. Communications Workers of America, 475 U.S. 643, 649

19

(1986). “[I]n deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance

20

to arbitration, a court is not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims.” Id.

21
22
23
24

[W]here the contract contains an arbitration clause, there is a
presumption of arbitrability in the sense that “[a]n order to
arbitrate the particular grievance should not be denied unless
it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration
clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the
asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor of
coverage.”

25

Id. at 650 (quoting Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 582-83). Despite that presumption,

26

parties may expressly agree to exclude a particular grievance or set of grievances from

27

the scope of arbitration. See Warrior & Gulf, 363 U.S. at 584-85. That is precisely what

28

the parties did here.
4

1

The CBA is clear that “[t]he designation of employees for ‘working foreperson’

2

assignments is the exclusive right of the Employer and is not subject to review under

3

this Agreement.” ECF No. 1-2 at 15 (emphasis added). It then reiterates that

4

“no . . . judgment concerning the Employer’s requirements shall be subject to the review

5

under any provision of the Agreement.” Id. As such, Defendant’s decision to designate

6

another employee as foreperson in lieu of Plaintiff is not arbitrable.2

7

Plaintiff argues to the contrary that the “exclusion only applies to the Employer’s

8

initial assignment and determination of an employee’s qualifications or suitability for the

9

foreperson classification.” Pl.’s Op., ECF No. 7, at 5. If that was what the parties

10

intended, however, they should have said as much. Nothing in the exclusionary

11

language limits its application to initial designations. Rather, the CBA expressly states,

12

without identifying any exceptions, that challenges to foreperson assignments are not

13

subject to review under the terms of the agreement. Defendant’s Motion is thus well

14

taken, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED.

15
16

CONCLUSION

17
18

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 5) is GRANTED with leave to amend.

19

Not later than twenty (20) days following the date this Memorandum and Order is

20

electronically filed, Plaintiff may, but is not required to, file an amended complaint. If no

21

amended complaint is timely filed, this action will be deemed dismissed with prejudice

22

upon no further notice to the parties.

23
24

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: June 7, 2018

25
26
27
2

28

The Court notes that although it finds based on the current complaint that Ms. Shah’s grievance
is not arbitrable, that does not necessarily mean she is without a remedy in some alternative forum.

5