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