Kaufman et al v. Pacific Maritime Association et al

Filing 23

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 10 13 Defendants' Motions to Dismiss Without Prejudice and With Leave to Amend. (Attachments: # 1 Certificate of Service). (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/18/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 RONNIE KAUFMAN, et al., 9 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 No. C-12-5051 EMC Plaintiffs, v. PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et al., ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITH LEAVE TO AMEND 12 13 Defendants. ___________________________________/ (Docket Nos. 10, 13) 14 15 16 On September 28, 2012, Plaintiffs Ronnie Kaufman and Alphonce Jackson filed a complaint 17 against Defendants Pacific Maritime Association (“PMA”), International Longshore and Warehouse 18 Union (“ILWU”), and ILWU Local 34. Compl., Docket No. 1. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges five 19 causes of action: (1) “LMRA 301”; (2) discrimination; (3) breach of contract; (4) collusion; and (5) 20 “breach of fair representation.” Id. On October 30, 2012, PMA filed a motion to dismiss (Docket 21 No. 13) and the ILWU Defendants filed a motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement (Docket 22 No. 10). 23 Plaintiffs’ complaint is facially deficient. Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 24 8(a)(2), a Complaint must contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader 25 is entitled to relief . . . .” Here, Plaintiffs’ complaint solely consists of quotations of what appears to 26 be their collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) under the header “breach of contract” (see 27 Compl., Docket No. 1, at 2-6); an allegation that “ILWU Local 34 has worked under a secret and 28 fraudulent agreement with the employer [PMA],” which agreement “allows ILWU Local 34 and 1 [PMA] to breach a total of 24 sections of the [CBA] on a continuous and ongoing basis” (id. at 7); 2 and a conclusion that “the union’s misconduct towards the Plaintiffs is arbitrary, discriminatory and 3 in bad faith” (id.). Plaintiffs do not allege how Defendants’ conduct was unlawful nor how such 4 conduct caused them harm. See Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009) (while “a 5 complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations . . . it must plead ‘enough facts to state a 6 claim to relief that is plausible on its face’”) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 7 (2007)). Plaintiffs’ opposition briefs likewise fail to highlight any facts showing how Defendants’ 8 conduct was unlawful or how such conduct caused them harm. See Pls.’ Opp’n to PMA Mot., 9 Docket No. 19; Pls.’ Opp’n to ILWU Mot., Docket No. 18. Thus, the Court DISMISSES Plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice and with leave to 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 amend. Plaintiffs will have sixty days from the date of this order in which to file an amended 12 complaint. For Plaintiffs’ benefit, the Court directs their attention to the Handbook for Pro Se 13 Litigants, which is available along with further information for the parties on the Court’s website 14 located at http://cand.uscourts.gov/proselitigants. Plaintiffs may also contact the Legal Help Center, 15 450 Golden Gate Avenue, 15th Floor, Room 2796, Telephone No. (415) 782-9000 extension 8657, 16 for free legal advice regarding their claims. 17 This order disposes of Docket Nos. 10 and 13. 18 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 21 Dated: December 18, 2012 22 _________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?