Williams v. United States Department of Labor

Filing 12

ORDER by Judge Claudia Wilken GRANTING DEFENDANTS 8 MOTION TO DISMISS. (ndr, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 5/1/2012)

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

3
4

ANTHONY L. WILLIAMS,

5

Plaintiff,

6
7
8
9
10

No. C 11-6653 CW
ORDER GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION
TO DISMISS (Docket
No. 8)

v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
LABOR,
Defendant.
________________________________/

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

Defendant United States Department of Labor has filed a
11
motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
12
Plaintiff Anthony L. Williams has not filed an opposition to
13
Defendant’s motion.

The Court takes Defendant’s motion under

14
submission on the papers and GRANTS the motion.
15
BACKGROUND
16
In September 2004, Plaintiff brought suit against United
17
Airlines, alleging retaliatory termination, pursuant to the
18
Whistleblower Protection Program (WPP) of the Wendell H. Ford
19
Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century (AIR 21),
20
49 U.S.C. § 42121.

This Court granted summary judgment in favor

21
of United Airlines on Plaintiff’s AIR 21 claim.

On appeal, the

22
Ninth Circuit found that this Court lacked subject matter
23
jurisdiction under the WPP, because the statute creates no private
24
right of action in federal district court.

Williams v. United

25
Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d 1019, 1021-25 (9th Cir. 2007).
26
In 2008, Plaintiff filed a complaint under the WPP against
27
United Airlines with the United States Department of Labor.
28

A

1

Department of Labor Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended

2

dismissal of his complaint because he filed his claim more than

3

ninety days after the filing deadline for such claims.

4

September 21, 2009, the Administrative Review Board (ARB) affirmed

5

the ALJ.

6

2008-AIR-003 (ARB Sept. 21, 2009).

7

subsequent motion for reconsideration.

8

Airlines, ARB No. 08-063, ALJ No. 2008-AIR-003 (ARB June 23,

9

2010).

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

On

Williams v. United Airlines, ARB No. 08-063, ALJ No.
The ARB also denied his
Williams v. United

Plaintiff appealed the ARB decision to the Federal Circuit,

11

which found that it did not have jurisdiction to review the

12

decision and transferred the case to the Ninth Circuit.

13

v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 370 Fed. Appx. 97, 97-98 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

14

In August 2011, the Ninth Circuit determined that it had

15

jurisdiction under the WPP, found that the ARB had properly denied

16

Plaintiff’s complaint as untimely and concluded that equitable

17

tolling did not apply.

18

App. LEXIS 17300, at *1-2 (9th Cir.).

Williams

Williams v. U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2011 U.S.

19

Plaintiff now returns to this Court in an attempt to set

20

aside the judgments against him in the prior proceedings both

21

before this Court and the ARB.

22

DISCUSSION

23

Dismissal is appropriate under Rule 12(b)(1) when the

24

district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the claim.

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

26

The Ninth Circuit has already determined that this Court

27

lacked subject matter jurisdiction to consider Plaintiff’s WPP

28

claim.

In doing so, the court did not simply determine that
2

1

“Williams must first file an administrative complaint before

2

filing a claim in federal district court,” but also questioned

3

“whether Williams could have brought this action at all in federal

4

district court,” and concluded that he could not, “even after

5

filing a complaint with the Secretary of Labor.”

6

United Airlines, Inc., 500 F.3d at 1022.

7

follow the Ninth Circuit’s prior decision.

8
9

Williams v.

This Court is bound to

This Court also does not have jurisdiction to review the
ARB’s decision.

Such jurisdiction is vested in the Court of

United States District Court
For the Northern District of California

10

Appeals under 49 U.S.C. § 42121(b)(4)(A).

11

Dept. of Labor, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17300, at *1.

12

Court clearly cannot review or reverse the Ninth Circuit’s prior

13

holding that the ARB properly denied Plaintiff’s complaint as

14

untimely.

15
16

See Williams v. U.S.
Further, this

CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, Defendant’s motion to

17

dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is GRANTED (Docket

18

No. 8).

19

additional allegations could cure the deficiencies identified

20

above.

21
22
23

Dismissal is without leave to amend, because no

The Clerk shall enter judgment and close the file.

Defendant

shall recover its costs from Plaintiff.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

24
25
26

Dated: 5/1/2012

CLAUDIA WILKEN
United States District Judge

27
28
3