Coffman v. UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.

Filing 31

ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 6/6/24 ORDERING that the court takes NO ACTION based on the filing of petitioner's 30 Request, other than to issue this clarifying order. This order resolves ECF No. 30 .(Kastilahn, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

Jill H. Coffman,

12
13
14
15

No. 2:23-cv-02495-KJM-DB
Petitioner,

ORDER

v.
UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc.,
Respondent.

16
17

Earlier this year, the court granted petitioner Jill Coffman’s request for a temporary

18

injunction against respondent UPS Supply Chain Solutions, Inc. under section 10(j) of the

19

National Labor Relations Act. See generally Prior Order (Jan. 3, 2024), ECF No. 23. Pending

20

the final disposition of the matters before the National Labor Relations Board, the court enjoined

21

respondent from engaging in actions that interfered with its employees’ rights to unionize. See id.

22

at 17. The court also ordered respondent to offer to reinstate Daniel Valadez, rescind his

23

unlawful suspension and discharge, post physical copies of the court’s order, convene a training

24

and then file sworn affidavits with the court showing compliance. Id. at 17–20.

25

Sworn declarations were filed with the court within the mandated time indicating

26

respondent had complied with the court’s order. See Daniels Decl., ECF No. 25; Carrillo Decl.,

27

ECF No. 26. Subsequently, the court ordered the parties to show cause within seven days why,

28

given the declarations asserting compliance, the case should not be closed in its entirety. Prior
1

1

Order (Feb. 6, 2024), ECF No. 27. Respondent replied requesting the court close the case given

2

its compliance with the court’s prior order. Resp. Reply, ECF No. 28. Petitioner did not respond,

3

and the court closed the case. See Prior Order (Feb. 26, 2024), ECF No. 29.

4

Now, in a letter dated May 28, 2024, petitioner informs the court the Administrative Law

5

Judge (ALJ) has issued a ruling sustaining the complaint’s allegations. See Request at 1, ECF

6

No. 30. Petitioner contends the ALJ’s decision is not final until acted on by the Board and

7

respondent has until June 7, 2024, to appeal. Id. Petitioner styles its filing as a “request for

8

continued injunctive relief,” and states this court’s injunction needs to remain in place. Petitioner

9

notes she will continue to keep the court apprised of developments in the underlying

10

administrative matter. Id.

11

The court has reviewed petitioner’s filing. Even though petitioner identifies it as a

12

“request,” it is not presented as a motion for administrative relief under Local Rule 233, nor is it

13

noticed on the court’s civil motion calendar under Local Rule 230. The court takes no action

14

based on the filing other than to issue this clarifying order.

15

This order resolves ECF No. 30.

16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

DATED: June 6, 2024.

18

2