Davis v. International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1781 et al

Filing 22

Order by Magistrate Judge Sallie Kim granting 7 Motion to for a More Definite Statement.(sklc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/5/2025)Any non-CM/ECF Participants have been served by First Class Mail to the addresses of record listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

ANDREW JOSEPH DAVIS,

Case No. 24-cv-08957-SK

Plaintiff,
8
v.
9
10
11

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE
WORKERS, LOCAL LODGE 1781, et al.,

ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS
AND FOR A MORE DEFINITE
STATEMENT
Regarding Docket No. 7

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Defendants.
12
13

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion to dismiss or, in the

14

alternative, for a more definite statement filed by Defendants International Association of

15

Machinists and Aerospace Workers, Local Lodge 1781, Anthony Parker, Eric Grogans, Nisha

16

Chaudry, Tevitia Sisifa, and Zachary Smith (“Defendants”). Having carefully considered the

17

parties’ papers, relevant legal authority, the record in the case, and having had the benefit of oral

18

argument, the Court hereby GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a more definite statement and

19

dismisses the Complaint for the reasons set forth below.

20

BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff Andrew Joseph Davis (“Plaintiff”) is a member of Machinists Lodge 1781 and

22

works for United Airlines. It is undisputed that he works under the terms of a collective

23

bargaining agreement (“CBA”). Moreover, Plaintiff’s local union is affiliated with the

24

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers.

25
26

ANALYSIS
A.

Applicable Legal Standard on Motion to Dismiss.

27

A motion to dismiss is proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) where the

28

pleadings fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. On a motion to dismiss under

1

Rule 12(b)(6), the Court construes the allegations in the complaint in the light most favorable to

2

the non-moving party and takes as true all material allegations in the complaint. Sanders v.

3

Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). Even under the liberal pleading standard of Rule

4

8(a)(2), “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires

5

more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action

6

will not do.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citing Papasan v. Allain,

7

478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). Rather, a plaintiff must instead allege “enough facts to state a claim to

8

relief that is plausible on its face.” Id. at 570.
“The plausibility standard is not akin to a probability requirement, but it asks for more than

United States District Court
Northern District of California

9
10

a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully. . . . When a complaint pleads facts that

11

are merely consistent with a defendant’s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and

12

plausibility of entitlement to relief.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting

13

Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal quotation marks omitted). If the allegations are insufficient to

14

state a claim, a court should grant leave to amend, unless amendment would be futile. See, e.g.

15

Reddy v. Litton Indus., Inc., 912 F.2d 291, 296 (9th Cir. 1990); Cook, Perkiss & Lieche, Inc. v. N.

16

Cal. Collection Serv., Inc., 911 F.2d 242, 246-47 (9th Cir. 1990).
As a general rule, “a district court may not consider material beyond the pleadings in ruling

17
18

on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on

19

other grounds, Galbraith v. Cnty. of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation omitted).

20

However, documents subject to judicial notice, such as matters of public record, may be

21

considered on a motion to dismiss. See Harris v. Cnty of Orange, 682 F.3d 1126, 1132 (9th Cir.

22

2011). In doing so, the Court does not convert a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment.

23

See Mack v. S. Bay Beer Distrib., 798 F.2d 1279, 1282 (9th Cir. 1986), overruled on other

24

grounds by Astoria Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n v. Solimino, 501 U.S. 104 (1991). “The court need

25

not . . . accept as true allegations that contradict matters properly subject to judicial notice . . . .”

26

Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F. 3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

27

B.

28

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or for a More Definite Statement.
The facts underlying Plaintiff’s complaint are unclear. In his complaint, Plaintiff describes
2

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

the events at a Local Lodge 1781 meeting on October 12, 2022, and alleges that the trial

2

committee of the local union read findings about Plaintiff to the union members. (Dkt. No. 1

3

(attached to the Notice of Removal).) Plaintiff appears to allege that such conduct was retaliation

4

for Plaintiff’s previous complaint that he filed against Local Lodge 1781. (Id.) Plaintiff also

5

describes events that occurred before the meeting on October 12, 2022, including an alleged

6

retaliatory complaint filed by Local Lodge 1781 Officer Eric Grogans against Plaintiff with the

7

local union and with United Airlines. (Id.) A trial before the local union was scheduled for

8

Plaintiff on the charges under Article L of the CBA for September 29, 2022. Plaintiff did not

9

attend the trial. (Id.)

10

Plaintiff alleges that he was removed from his elected position within Local Lodge 1781

11

without a trial as required under the CBA, but he does not specify when he was removed from

12

office. (Id.)

13

Plaintiff initially filed his complaint in the Superior Court for the County of San Mateo.

14

Defendants removed this action to federal court on the grounds that Plaintiff’s complaint asserts

15

that Local Lodge 1781 breached its duty of fair representation and violated the CBA and that

16

Plaintiff was denied due process under the CBA. Defendants contend that such claims are

17

completely preempted by 29 U.S.C. 185 and 29 U.S.C. § 412.

18

Defendants’ motion to dismiss or for a more definite statement is not the model of clarity.

19

They appear to argue as follows: (1) that Plaintiff’s state-law claims against the Union are

20

completely preempted by the Railway Labor Act; (2) that Plaintiff’s claim based on events

21

occurring before the October 12, 2022 meeting are barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) that

22

Plaintiff’s claims against individual union officials for acts as union representatives are precluded

23

by Supreme Court precedent.1

24

In opposition to Defendants’ motion, Plaintiff clarified that his claims are only based on

25

the events of the October 12, 2022 meeting, but it is still not clear what claims Plaintiff brings and

26

against whom. Unless and until it is clear, the Court cannot address whether Plaintiff has

27
28

1

Defendants did not provide this precedent, though.
3

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

sufficiently alleged facts to state such claims. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion

2

for a more definite statement and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. Plaintiff

3

shall file his amended complaint, if he elects to file one, by no later than March 26, 2025. If he

4

elects to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff shall take care to clearly allege: (1) what claims he

5

brings; (2) which Defendant each claim or claims are against; and (3) what facts support each

6

claim.

7

The Court reminds Plaintiff that the district court has produced a guide for pro se litigants

8

called Representing Yourself in Federal Court: A Handbook for Pro Se Litigants, which provides

9

instructions on how to proceed at every stage of your case, including discovery, motions, and trial.

10

It is available electronically online (https://perma.cc/ANQ4-N2ZT) or in hard copy free of charge

11

from the Clerk’s Office. The Court additionally has a website with resources for pro se litigants

12

(https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/pro-se-litigants/). The Court further advises Plaintiff that he also

13

may wish to seek assistance from the Legal Help Center. Plaintiff may call the Legal Help Center

14

at 415-782-8982 or email [e-mail] for a free appointment with an attorney who may be

15

able to provide basic legal help, but not legal representation.

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion for a more definite

18

statement and DISMISSES Plaintiff’s complaint with leave to amend. As stated above, Plaintiff’s

19

deadline to file an amended complaint in accordance with this Order is March 26, 2025.

20
21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: March 5, 2025
______________________________________
SALLIE KIM
United States Magistrate Judge

24
25
26
27
28
4