Mediran v. The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers et al

Filing 59

ORDER Denying 44 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment, and for Modification of Order to Grant Leave to File Amended Complaint. (tehlc4, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 09/09/2009)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 v. THE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, et al., Defendants. JEFFREY J. MEDIRAN, Plaintiff, NO. C 09-00538 TEH
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT, AND FOR MODIFICATION OF ORDER TO GRANT LEAVE TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

United States District Court

11
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14

This matter comes before the Court on the Motion to Set Aside Judgment, and for

15 Modification of Order to Grant Leave to File Amended Complaint, filed by Plaintiff Jeffrey 16 J. Mediran ("Plaintiff"). Plaintiff seeks to set aside the judgment entered for Defendants 17 International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers ("Union") and United Air 18 Lines, Inc. ("United") on June 17, 2009. After reviewing the parties' written arguments, the 19 Court finds this motion suitable for resolution without oral argument and VACATES the 20 motion hearing scheduled for September 14, 2009. For the reasons set forth below, the Court 21 DENIES Plaintiff's motion. 22 Plaintiff filed his Complaint against the Union and United in San Francisco County 23 Superior Court on January 2, 2009, asserting four causes of action: (1) breach of the duty of 24 fair representation, against the Union; 2) breach of contract, against United; (3) injunctive 25 relief, against both Defendants; and (4) fraud, against the Union. The action was removed to 26 federal court on February 5, 2009, and both Defendants moved for judgment on the 27 pleadings, which the Court granted in a June 16, 2009 Order ("6/16/09 Order"). 28

1

The Court ruled in Defendants' favor on two bases. First, three of Plaintiff's four

2 causes of action were preempted by the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151 et 3 seq., which provides the exclusive remedy for minor disputes involving collective bargaining 4 agreements in the airline industry. Second, all four claims were barred because the 5 six-month statute of limitations had run before Plaintiff filed his Complaint. Plaintiff now 6 asks the Court to reconsider that ruling. The Court declines to do so. 7 Plaintiff moves pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) and 60(b)(6),

8 which allow the Court to relieve a party from a final judgment or order due to "mistake, 9 inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect," Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 60(b)(1), or for "any other 10 reason that justifies relief," id. 60(b)(6). Plaintiff fails to explain how relief is justified under

United States District Court

11 either standard. Rule 60(b)(6) is used only "sparingly as an equitable remedy to prevent
For the Northern District of California

12 manifest injustice," and requires the moving party to "demonstrate both injury and 13 circumstances beyond his control that prevented him from proceeding with the action in a 14 proper fashion." Latshaw v. Trainer Wortham & Co., 452 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2006) 15 (internal citations omitted). Plaintiff has demonstrated neither, nor has he even attempted 16 such a showing. He likewise describes no mistake or neglect that could justify relief under 17 Rule 60(b)(1), arguing only that the basis for his motion is that the 6/16/09 Order "did not 18 allow for amendment" of the Complaint. Pl.'s Reply to United's Opp'n at 5. 19 In addition to seeking relief from judgment, Plaintiff also asks the Court to grant him

20 leave to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a), which 21 instructs the Court to "freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 22 15(a)(2). In the Proposed Amended Complaint ("PAC") attached to his motion, Plaintiff has 23 dropped his claims for injunctive relief and fraud, proposing to bring only a duty of fair 24 representation claim against the Union, and a breach of contract claim against United. He 25 also supplements his allegations regarding his pursuit of internal grievance procedures 26 between 2005 and 2008, asserting that Union representatives repeatedly told him that "the 27 grievance procedures were being processed and perfected on his behalf." Motion at 4. 28 2

1 Those facts, according to Plaintiff, should toll the statute of limitations because he 2 "reasonably relied upon" the Union representatives. Id. 3 Plaintiff appears to believe that the Court concluded his claims were time-barred

4 because he did not allege sufficient facts to show that the statute of limitations had been 5 tolled. Plaintiff misconstrues the Court's 6/16/09 Order. The Court observed that the 6 Complaint "clearly asserts that over the period from September 2005 to January 2008, his 7 `follow-ups were ignored by defendants over time.'" 6/16/09 Order, at 8 (quoting 8 Complaint). Rather than tolling the statute of limitations, Plaintiff's continuous but 9 ineffectual attempts to move his grievance forward should have given him "ample reason to 10 believe there was a problem with his grievance." Id. Plaintiff cannot escape this conclusion

United States District Court

11 by merely providing further detail of his communications with the Union regarding his
For the Northern District of California

12 grievance. A cause of action accrues under the RLA when "the plaintiff knew, or should 13 have known, of the defendant's wrongdoing and can successfully maintain a suit in the 14 district court." Allen v. United Food & Commercial Workers Int'l Union, 43 F.3d 424, 427 15 (9th Cir. 1994). Although a fair representation claim may be "tolled while good faith 16 attempts are made to resolve that claim through grievance procedures," that is appropriate 17 only "where the pursuit of contractual remedies would toll the statute for only a few 18 months." Galindo v. Stoody Co., 793 F.2d 1502, 1510 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1986). Furthermore, 19 the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and United imposes strict deadlines 20 on every phase of the grievance process, requiring a "step two" grievance to be filed no more 21 than 15 days after the first level is completed. According to Plaintiff's allegations, 22 approximately three years passed with no action on his stage two grievance. Clearly Plaintiff 23 "should have known"of the alleged wrongdoing soon after the grievance deadlines had 24 passed with no action. The Court stands by its conclusion that "the statute had certainly run 25 on Mediran's claims by January 2009, more than three years after the beginning of the period 26 in which Mediran alleges that Defendants failed to prosecute or participate in the grievance 27 process." 6/16/09 Order at 8. 28 3

1

Therefore, even if Plaintiff had presented a legitimate basis for relief from judgment

2 under Rule 60(b), his PAC would still fail to survive a motion for judgment on the pleadings. 3 As such, there is no reason to grant Plaintiff leave to amend. See Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 4 815, 846 (9th Cir. 1995) ("Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a motion 5 for leave to amend."). 6 Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Judgment, and for Modification of Order to Grant

7 Leave to File Amended Complaint, is DENIED. 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10

United States District Court

11 Dated: September 9, 2009
For the Northern District of California

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

THELTON E. HENDERSON, JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4