American Maritime Officers v. American President Lines, LTD. et al
Filing
14
ORDER Denying 5 Plaintiff's Ex Parte Application for Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Re Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 2/29/2016. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/29/2016)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
6
7
AMERICAN MARITIME OFFICERS
8
DISTRICT 2 MEBA, AFL-CIO,
Plaintiff,
9
v.
10
11
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
Case No. 16-cv-00861-EMC
AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, LTD., et
al.,
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S EX
PARTE APPLICATION FOR
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
AND ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Docket No. 5
Defendants.
13
14
Plaintiff has filed an application for a temporary restraining order. A hearing was held on
15
Plaintiff’s application on February 29, 2016. For the reasons stated on the record, the Court
16
DENIES the application for relief. As the Court noted at the hearing:
17
18
19
1.
Relief is not appropriate as Plaintiff has not joined the competing unions in this
litigation as an indispensable party. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1)(B).
2.
Plaintiff has not adequately established irreparable injury in the absence of an
20
injunction. If Plaintiff were to ultimately prevail on the merits, its members could still obtain, e.g.,
21
reinstatement and back pay.
22
3.
Plaintiff has not established a likelihood of success on the merits or even serious
23
questions going to the merits. On its face, the MOU did not guarantee that the agreement would
24
last for any specified period of time. Furthermore, on its face, the MOU did not prevent
25
Defendants from unilaterally terminating the agreement. In addition, Defendants were not
26
statutorily prohibited from unilaterally terminating the agreement as the NLRA excludes
27
supervisors from the definition of employee. See 29 U.S.C. § 152(3).
28
3.
Even if Plaintiff could show serious questions going to the merits, Plaintiff has not
1
shown that the balance of hardships tips sharply in its favor or that the public interest weighs in
2
favor of an injunction. The interests of the competing unions’ members must be given equal
3
consideration.
4
Accordingly, Plaintiff’s request for relief is denied.
5
This order disposes of Docket No. 5.
6
7
IT IS SO ORDERED.
8
9
10
______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge
12
For the Northern District of California
United States District Court
11
Dated: February 29, 2016
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
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?