Thibodeaux v. Teamsters Local 853

Filing 37

Order by Magistrate Judge Maria-Elena James granting 33 Motion to Dismiss.(mejlc3, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/26/2017)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

GEORGE THIBODEAUX,

Case No. 17-cv-00188-MEJ

Plaintiff,
8

ORDER RE: MOTION TO DISMISS

v.

Re: Dkt. No. 33

9
10

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 853,
Defendant.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12
INTRODUCTION

13

Pending before the Court is Defendant Teamsters Local 853’s (“Defendant” or “Local

14
15

853”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff George Thibodeaux’s (“Plaintiff”) First Amended Complaint

16

(“FAC”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (“Rule”) 12(b)(6). Dkt. No. 33. Plaintiff

17

filed an Opposition (Dkt. No. 35) and Defendant filed a Reply (Dkt. No. 36). The Court finds this

18

matter suitable for disposition without oral argument and VACATES the June 29, 2017 hearing.

19

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); Civ. L.R. 7-1(b). Having considered the parties’ positions, relevant

20

legal authority, and the record in this case, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion for the

21

following reasons.
BACKGROUND

22
23
24

A.

Allegations of the FAC
For almost twenty years, Plaintiff was employed as a commercial driver of a cement mixer

25

truck by Central Concrete Supply Co. and was a member of Local 853. FAC ¶¶ 1, 8-9, Dkt. No.

26

32. On March 7, 2013, Plaintiff was operating a cement mixer that experienced a drum control

27

problem, which caused a concrete spill. Id. ¶ 14. On March 19, 2013, Central Concrete sent

28

Plaintiff a letter terminating his employment “effective today . . . based on your unacceptable

1

behavior relative to your most current concrete spill on March 7, 2013.” Id. ¶ 13. Plaintiff alleges

2

Central Concrete terminated him without just cause. Id. ¶ 14.

3

Central Concrete, Local 853, and Plaintiff are governed by a collective bargaining

4

agreement (“CBA”) that prevents an employer from terminating an employee without just cause.

5

Id. ¶¶ 10-11. The agreement provides that all disputes arising under the terms of the agreement

6

“shall be resolved” through an escalating dispute resolution procedure. Id. ¶ 12. In the first step,

7

the dispute may be taken up with local management at the employee’s discretion; however, the

8

local union shall take up any formal dispute in the locality with the employer. Id. If the union and

9

the employer are unable to resolve the dispute, the second step requires the dispute to be referred
to the Board of Adjustment. Id. If the Board of Adjustment fails to resolve the dispute, at the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

third step, the dispute “shall be submitted to an impartial arbitrator upon the request of either

12

party.” Id.
Plaintiff alleges he requested Local 853 thoroughly investigate the drum control problem,

13
14

but that Local 853 failed to do so; in particular, Local 853 failed to interview the mechanic

15

responsible for the truck mixer and did not obtain pertinent maintenance records. Id. ¶¶ 16-17.

16

Plaintiff also requested Local 853 take up a formal dispute with his employer; Local 853 did so.

17

Id. ¶¶ 15, 18. When the dispute was not resolved, the Board of Adjustment conducted a hearing

18

on May 23, 2013. Id. ¶¶ 18-19. Plaintiff alleges that, at the hearing, Local 853 did not adequately

19

present the factual circumstances supporting his grievance “and instead made perfunctory

20

arguments to the effect that Thibodeaux was a team player and wanted to work with Central

21

Concrete.” Id. ¶ 19. During the May 23, 2013 meeting, Dan Varela—Local 853’s business

22

agent—acted as Chairman of the Board of Adjustment. Id. ¶ 23. Varela seconded the motion to

23

deny Plaintiff’s grievance. Id. ¶ 20. Plaintiff did not discover that Varela denied his grievance

24

until March 23, 2017, when he received the meeting minutes for the May 23, 2013 meeting. Id.

25

B.

Procedural Background

26

On December 27, 2016, Plaintiff initiated this action in California Superior Court against

27

Local 853 alleging four state law claims: breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith

28

and fair dealing, intentional misrepresentation, and negligent misrepresentation. See Compl., Dkt.
2

1

No. 1. Defendant removed the action to this Court, asserting the Complaint alleged a breach of the

2

duty of fair representation, a claim that arises under the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”),

3

29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq., a federal question that gives the Court subject matter jurisdiction. See

4

Not. of Removal ¶ 3, Dkt. No. 1. In denying Plaintiff’s motion to remand the action, the Court

5

found Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a),

6

preempted Plaintiff’s claims. See Order re: Mot. to Remand, Dkt. No. 19.
Defendant moved to dismiss the action on the ground it was barred by the statute of

7
8

limitations. See Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 11. The Court found that Plaintiff’s claims could “be

9

fairly characterized” as a “hybrid” claim, to which a six-month statute of limitations applied.
Order Dismissing Compl. at 6-7, Dkt. No. 31. The Court further found the statute of limitations

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

started to run on or about October 16, 2013, when Defendant notified Plaintiff “the grievance was

12

final and binding . . . . The union has exhausted its defense of your termination under the [CBA].”

13

Id. at 8.1 The Court thus granted the Motion to Dismiss, but gave Plaintiff leave to amend to

14

allege additional facts to show the statute of limitations was tolled due to Defendant’s fraudulent

15

conduct. Id. at 9. Plaintiff timely filed the FAC, which asserts a single claim for breach of the

16

duty of fair representation based on Local 853’s failure to serve his interests by (1) failing to

17

investigate the drum problem; (2) failing to adequately present the factual circumstances to the

18

Board of Adjustment; (3) concealing from Plaintiff that Varela had denied his grievance; and (4)

19

failing to notify Plaintiff it had not presented his grievance to an impartial arbitrator.

20

LEGAL STANDARD

21

Rule 8(a) requires that a complaint contain a “short and plain statement of the claim

22

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). A complaint must therefore

23

provide a defendant with “fair notice” of the claims against it and the grounds for relief. Bell Atl.

24

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (internal quotations and citation omitted).
A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) when it does not contain enough

25
26
27
28

1

In the original complaint, Plaintiff alleged that Bo Morgan represented to Plaintiff in writing on
October 16, 2013 that the “grievance was final and binding. . . The union has exhausted its
defense of your termination under the [CBA].” Compl. ¶ 18; see also id. ¶ 42.
3

1

facts to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Id. at 570. “A claim has facial

2

plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable

3

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662,

4

678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for

5

more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. (quoting Twombly, 550

6

U.S. at 557). “While a complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need

7

detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to

8

relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a

9

cause of action will not do. Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the

10

speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal citations and parentheticals omitted).

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

In considering a motion to dismiss, a court must accept all of the plaintiff’s allegations as

12

true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Id. at 550; Erickson v. Pardus,

13

551 U.S. 89, 93-94 (2007); Vasquez v. Los Angeles Cty., 487 F.3d 1246, 1249 (9th Cir. 2007). In

14

addition, courts may consider documents attached to the complaint. Parks Sch. of Bus., Inc. v.

15

Symington, 51 F.3d 1480, 1484 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted).

16

If a Rule 12(b)(6) motion is granted, the “court should grant leave to amend even if no

17

request to amend the pleading was made, unless it determines that the pleading could not possibly

18

be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (en

19

banc) (internal quotations and citations omitted). However, the Court may deny leave to amend

20

for a number of reasons, including “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the

21

movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice

22

to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and] futility of amendment.”

23

Eminence Capital, LLC v. Aspeon, Inc., 316 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2003) (citing Foman v.

24

Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)).

25
26

DISCUSSION
The parties agree that Plaintiff’s single claim is subject to a six-month statute of

27

limitations. See Mot. at 7 (citing Del Costello v. Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 169-70 (1983)

28

(adopting six-month statute of limitation for breach of union’s duty of fair representation)); Opp’n
4

1

at 5; see also Order Dismissing Compl. at 5-7 (analyzing applicable statute of limitations).

2

Defendant argues the claim is barred because it accrued at the latest on May 23, 2013, when the

3

Board of Adjustment denied Plaintiff’s grievance. Mot. at 7 (citing Price v. S. Pac. Transp. Co.,

4

586 F.2d 750, 754 (9th Cir. 1978) (claim against union for breach of duty of fair representation

5

accrues when employer denies request for reinstatement), disapproved on other grounds, Del

6

Costello, 462 U.S. at 65-71). Plaintiff argues Local 853’s fraudulent concealment tolls the statute

7

of limitations, and that his claim is therefore timely because he did not discover the facts giving

8

rise to it until March 2017. Opp’n at 5. He contends the FAC adequately pleads a basis for

9

fraudulent concealment by alleging that (1) Local 853 concealed the material fact that Varela
resolved the dispute adversely to Plaintiff; (2) Plaintiff did not discover this fact until March 23,

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

2017 when he received the May 2013 meeting minutes; and (3) he acted diligently by filing the

12

FAC shortly after learning the true facts. Id. (citing FAC ¶¶ 22-23, 26).

13

A.

Fraudulent Concealment

14

1.

Incorporation by Reference

15

The FAC references the May 2013 Meeting Minutes and the CBA; both Plaintiff’s

16

substantive claim and his fraudulent concealment theory necessarily rely upon these documents.

17

See FAC ¶¶ 10-12, 20-23. Although neither of these documents is attached to the FAC, the Court

18

may consider both the CBA and the May 2013 Meeting Minutes in connection with the Motion to

19

Dismiss. See Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 705-06 (9th Cir. 1998) (“[A] district court

20

ruling on a motion to dismiss may consider a document the authenticity of which is not contested,

21

and upon which the plaintiff’s complaint necessarily relies”) (citing Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d

22

449, 454 (9th Cir. 1994)), superseded on other grounds by statute; see id. at 706 n.4. Defendant

23

filed the CBA in connection with its Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, and filed the May 23, 2013

24

Meeting Minutes in support of its Reply to this Motion. See First Morgan Decl., Ex. A (CBA),

25

Dkt. No. 11-1; Second Morgan Decl., Ex. A, Dkt. No. 36-1 (Meeting Minutes). Both documents

26

were attached to declarations filed by Bo Morgan, who authenticated the documents and laid

27

foundation for them based on his personal knowledge as (former) Vice President of Local 853.

28

See First Morgan Decl. ¶¶ 1-3; Second Morgan Decl. ¶¶ 1-3. Plaintiff did not object to the CBA
5

1

when Local 853 first introduced it; he also has not objected to the Meeting Minutes. See Civ. L.R.

2

7-3(d)(1) (objection to reply evidence must be filed within 7 days after reply is filed).

3

In deciding this Motion to Dismiss, the Court “need not . . . accept as true allegations that

4

contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice or by exhibit. Nor is the [C]ourt required to

5

accept as true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or

6

unreasonable inferences.” In re Gilead Scis. Secs. Litig., 536 F.3d 1049, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008)

7

(citing Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 1061, 1065 (9th Cir. 2008)).
2.

9

Plaintiff bears “the burden of pleading and proving fraudulent concealment; [he] must

10

plead facts showing that [the defendant] affirmatively misled [him], and that [he] had neither

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

8

actual nor constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to [his] claim despite [his] diligence in

12

trying to uncover those facts.” Hexcel Corp. v. Ineos Polymers, Inc., 681 F.3d 1055, 1060 (9th

13

Cir. 2012); Conmar Corp. v. Mitsui & Co., 858 F.2d 499, 505 (9th Cir. 1988) (“A plaintiff

14

alleging fraudulent concealment must establish that its failure to have notice of its claim was the

15

result of affirmative conduct by the defendant. . . . Passive concealment of information is not

16

enough to toll the statute of limitations unless the defendant had a fiduciary duty to disclose the

17

information to the plaintiff.”). Although not specifically pleaded, the Court assumes without

18

deciding that Local 853’s duty of fair representation imposed on Local 853 the same duty to

19

disclose owed by a fiduciary. See Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Int’l v. O’Neill, 499 U.S. 65, 74 (1991).

20

Accordingly, Plaintiff need not plead affirmative acts to mislead; he nevertheless must plead

21

allegations of fraudulent concealment with particularity, including facts showing his lack of

22

constructive knowledge and his diligence. Conmar, 858 F.2d at 502, 505; see also Fed. R. Civ. P.

23

9(b) (plaintiff alleging fraud must state with particularity circumstances constituting fraud).

24

Analysis

As an initial matter, the FAC does not plead fraudulent concealment with respect to most

25

of the theories Plaintiff articulates to support his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation.

26

The FAC conclusorily alleges Local 853 “concealed” the May 2013 Meeting Minutes from him,

27

did not adequately investigate the incident, and did not adequately present his case to the Board.

28

See FAC ¶¶ 16-17, 19, 21. These allegations do not meet the particularity standard of Rule 9(b).
6

1

See Conmar, 858 F.2d at 505; see also Ryan v. Microsoft Corp., 147 F. Supp. 3d 868, 886 (N.D.

2

Cal. 2015) (plaintiff seeking to allege fraudulent concealment must satisfy Rule 9(b) heightened

3

pleading requirements). The FAC contains no allegations showing that Local 853 misled Plaintiff

4

in any manner with respect to its investigation of the cement spill or its presentation of evidence to

5

the Board, or concealed related material facts from Plaintiff. Moreover, the FAC contains no

6

allegations showing that Plaintiff lacked actual or constructive knowledge of Local 853’s actions

7

in connection with its investigation or presentation to the Board. In fact, such allegations would

8

not be plausible given that the May 2013 Meeting Minutes reflect that Plaintiff actually was

9

present at the Board of Adjustment meeting, presented his perception of the accident, and
answered the Board’s questions. See Meeting Minutes at 3-4. The Meeting Minutes reflect that

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the Board discussed Central Concrete’s investigation of the truck’s mechanical issues, including

12

the mechanic’s evaluation of the cement truck and interviews of other drivers and Plaintiff, which

13

Local 853 attended. Id. at 2-3. The Minutes reflect Varela asked Plaintiff “if everything that he

14

had wanted to be presented had been presented by the Union, and [Plaintiff] answered yes and

15

acknowledged that the Union did all that they could.” Id. at 4.

16

Plaintiff also fails to plead facts sufficient to show he did not have constructive knowledge

17

of, and that he did act diligently to uncover, the facts giving rise to his claim. The FAC alleges no

18

facts showing how, in light of Plaintiff’s presence at the May 2013 Board Meeting, he acted

19

diligently in confirming the Union had fully investigated the accident or adequately presented his

20

claims to the Board, learning the outcome of the Board Meeting and the reasons for the denial of

21

his grievance, or confirming Local 853 would proceed according to his understanding of the

22

grievance procedure and present his claim to an arbitrator. For example, the FAC does not allege

23

Plaintiff requested and was refused the May 2013 Meeting Minutes, or asked Local 853 and Local

24

853 lied about the outcome of his grievance.2 Simply put, the Meeting Minutes demonstrate that

25

no later than May 2013, Plaintiff was constructively aware of the conduct he now contends

26

violated Local 853’s duty of fair representation, and failed to investigate the facts that he now

27
2

28

Moreover, Plaintiff alleged in his original complaint that he was informed the denial of his
grievance was final no later than October 16, 2013. See n.1, supra.
7

1

alleges constitute a breach of Local 853’s duty of fair representation. Not only does Plaintiff fail

2

to plead facts sufficient to show he lacked constructive knowledge of the facts giving rise to his

3

claim, but the May 2013 Meeting Minutes render the FAC’s conclusory allegations implausible.

4

Second, the May 2013 Meeting Minutes render implausible Plaintiff’s argument that he

5

first learned Local 853 breached its duty when he received the minutes in 2017 and saw that

6

Varela seconded the motion to deny his grievance. FAC ¶ 20. While the FAC pleads the

7

allegation pertaining to Varela with more particularity, the Meeting Minutes do not show that

8

Varela seconded the motion to deny Plaintiff’s grievance or played any role in the decision to deny

9

his grievance. See Meeting Minutes. The CBA explains that the Board of Adjustment “shall be
composed of two (2) members named by the Union and two (2) members named by the

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Employer.” See CBA ¶ 20.7. The May 2013 Meeting Minutes indicate Bo Morgan stepped down

12

as Chairman for Plaintiff’s case, and that Varela filled in in his stead; however, the four members

13

of Plaintiff’s Panel consisted of Mark Villa and Kim Williams for the Employer, and Bill Hoyt

14

and Jim Sveum for Local 853. See Meeting Minutes at 1-2. The May 2013 Meeting Minutes do

15

not reflect in any way that Varela made, seconded, or carried to deny Plaintiff’s grievance. See

16

Meeting Minutes. Plaintiff’s allegation that the Minutes show Varela denied his grievance is

17

contradicted by the Meeting Minutes themselves. The FAC does not allege facts other than

18

Plaintiff’s erroneous description of the May 2013 Meeting Minutes to support the claim that

19

Varela had any part in the decision to deny Plaintiff’s grievance. Plaintiff’s allegation that Varela

20

played such a role is an unwarranted deduction of fact or an unreasonable inference, and does not

21

state a claim.

22

Third, the May 2013 Meeting Minutes and CBA render implausible Plaintiff’s allegation

23

that the Board had any duty to present his grievance to an impartial arbitrator, and thus had any

24

duty to notify him that it had not submitted his grievance to an arbitrator. See FAC ¶ 21. The

25

May 2013 Meeting Minutes reflect that Plaintiff’s grievance was resolved in an executive session.

26

Meeting Minutes at 4 (“A motion was made, seconded, and carried to deny the grievance.”). The

27

CBA contains no provision for submitting a resolved dispute to an impartial arbitrator; it only

28

provides that “[i]f the Board of Adjustment fails to resolve the dispute, it shall be submitted to an
8

1

impartial arbitrator upon the request of either party.” CBA ¶ 20.1(3) (emphasis added). The FAC

2

does not allege the Board failed to resolve the dispute; on the contrary, it alleges a “motion was

3

made, seconded . . . and carried to deny” Plaintiff’s grievance at that meeting. FAC ¶ 20. In light

4

of the CBA and the May 2013 Meeting Minutes, the FAC does not plead facts sufficient to show

5

that Local 853 had a duty to inform Plaintiff that it would not submit his resolved grievance to an

6

impartial arbitrator, or breached its duty to Plaintiff by failing to submit his dispute to an

7

arbitrator.

8
9

Plaintiff’s argument that it is “‘inappropriate to resolve the fact-intensive allegations of
fraudulent concealment at the motion to dismiss stage’” (Opp’n at 5 (quoting In re Animation
Workers Antitrust Litig., 123 F. Supp. 3d 1175, 1194 (N.D. Cal. 2015))) is not well taken.

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Plaintiff’s truncated quotation distorts the meaning of the original: “[A]llegations of fraudulent

12

concealment must be pled with particularity. . . . However, ‘it is generally inappropriate to resolve

13

the fact-intensive allegations of fraudulent concealment at the motion to dismiss stage, particularly

14

when the proof relating to the extent of the fraudulent concealment is alleged to be largely in the

15

hands of the alleged conspirators.’” In re Animation Workers Antitrust Litig., 123 F. Supp. 3d at

16

1194 (quoting In re Rubber Chemicals Antitrust Litig., 504 F. Supp. 2d 777, 789 (N.D. Cal.

17

2007)); see also Ryan, 147 F. Supp. 3d at 885 (“Plaintiffs nevertheless must allege specific factual

18

allegations of fraudulent concealment to survive a motion to dismiss.”). As discussed above, the

19

Court is not faced with fact-intensive allegations of fraudulent concealment, but with a few

20

conclusory allegations that are not pleaded with particularity and/or that contradict documents

21

Plaintiff has incorporated by reference in the FAC. Moreover, Plaintiff neither alleges nor argues

22

that proof relating to the fraudulent concealment is in Local 853’s possession.

23

Plaintiff attempts to state a claim with conclusions, unwarranted deductions of facts,

24

unreasonable inferences, and allegations that are contradicted by documents he has incorporated

25

by reference into the FAC. The Court accordingly finds that Plaintiff’s claim for breach of the

26

duty of fair representation accrued on May 23, 2013 when the Board denied his grievance, and that

27
28
9

1

the statute of limitations was not tolled.3 As such, his claim is untimely under the applicable six-

2

month statute of limitations.

3

B.

Leave to Amend
Despite having been granted leave to amend specifically to allege grounds for fraudulent

4
5

concealment (Order Dismissing Compl. at 9), Plaintiff added only conclusory allegations that are

6

insufficient to show that Defendant concealed any material facts, or that he lacked constructive

7

knowledge of, and was diligent in finding out, the bases for his claim. Furthermore, the

8

documents that Plaintiff relies upon to state his claim render even the limited factual allegations in

9

the FAC implausible. Finally, Plaintiff does not ask for leave to amend once more should the
Court find his allegations insufficient, and makes no showing he can allege additional facts should

11
United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

the Court grant him leave to amend. The Court accordingly concludes that granting Plaintiff leave

12

to amend would be futile.
CONCLUSION

13

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss the FAC,

14
15

without leave to amend. Because the Court dismisses Plaintiff’s claim on statute of limitations

16

grounds, it does not address Defendant’s argument that Local 853 cannot be liable for the Board’s

17

decision. See Mot. at 8. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close the file.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18
19
20

Dated: June 26, 2017
______________________________________
MARIA-ELENA JAMES
United States Magistrate Judge

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3

Plaintiff attempts to distinguish Price, 586 F.2d at 754 (breach of duty of fair representation
claim accrues when decision not to reinstate employee is made) on the ground that “in stark
contrast, the Teamsters concealed from [Plaintiff] that [their] own Business Agent had decided
[Plaintiff’s] grievance adversely to him.” Opp’n at 6. But as discussed above, this distinction is
not supported by the allegations of the FAC nor by the May 2013 Meeting Minutes.
10