McEnroe v. Local 9400, Communication Workers of America, AFL-CIO et al

Filing 64

ORDER REGARDING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING. Signed by Judge Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr. on 11/13/2015. (ndrS, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/13/2015)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

SARA MCENROE,

Case No. 14-cv-03461-HSG

Plaintiff,
8
v.

ORDER REGARDING
SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

9
10
11

LOCAL 9400, COMMUNICATION
WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et
al.,

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

Plaintiff Sara McEnroe filed this action on August 16, 2012, in Sonoma County Superior

14

Court, against Defendants Local 9400, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; District

15

9, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and Communications Workers of America,

16

AFL-CIO. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on July 30, 2014. Id. In the

17

operative complaint, filed on August 27, 2014, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for breach

18

of the duty of fair representation as to Plaintiff’s unlawful termination grievance, which is a

19

“hybrid” claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Dkt. No. 11.

20

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 41. A

21

hearing on the motion was held on November 12, 2015, at which Plaintiff represented that

22

additional discovery taken since she filed the opposition to the motion for summary judgment

23

demonstrates a genuine dispute of material fact. While the Court doubts that Plaintiff has made

24

the required showing under Rule 56(d) that “for specified reasons, [she] cannot present facts

25

essential to justify [her] opposition,” the Court finds in an abundance of caution that supplemental

26

briefing regarding the additional discovery is warranted to ensure that a decision on the motion for

27

summary judgment is made on the basis of a complete evidentiary record.

28

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental brief of no more than ten pages,

1

clearly setting out those new facts discovered after the opposition was filed that bear on (1) when

2

the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation occurred; (2) what constituted the alleged

3

breach of the duty of fair representation; and (3) why there is a genuine dispute of material fact

4

regarding whether Defendants breached the duty of fair representation. Plaintiff shall file the

5

supplemental brief by November 30, 2015. Defendants need not file a responsive supplemental

6

brief unless the Court so orders following its review of Plaintiff’s filing.

7
8

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 13, 2015

9
________________________
HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.
United States District Judge

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2