Ramos v. Association of Flight Attendants-CWA, AFL-CIo

Filing 31

ORDER granting 7 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue. Signed by Judge James I. Cohn on 6/29/2015. (ns) NOTICE: If there are sealed documents in this case, they may be unsealed after 1 year or as directed by Court Order, unless they have been designated to be permanently sealed. See Local Rule 5.4 and Administrative Order 2014-69.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
CASE NO. 15-60138-CIV-COHN/SELTZER
ISMAEL RAMOS,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATION OF FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
CWA, AFL-CIO,
Defendant.
/
ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the
Alternative to Transfer Venue [DE 7]. The Court has reviewed the Motion and the record
in this case, and is otherwise advised in the premises.
In this action, Plaintiff Ismael Ramos has raised a single claim against Defendant
Association of Flight Attendants CWA, AFL-CIO ("AFA"), for breach of the duty of fair
representation under 29 U.S.C. § 185 of the Labor and Management Relations Act. See
generally DE 1 (Complaint). In 2013, Ramos worked as a flight attendant for United
Airlines. Id. ¶ 8; DE 7 at 2. United Airlines terminated Ramos's employment in
November 2013 for the improper use of a "buddy pass" air-travel ticket. Compl. ¶¶ 8–
13. Ramos alleges that AFA, a union of which he was a member, declined to advocate
on his behalf. Id. ¶ 14. On this basis, Ramos asserts his claim against AFA for breach of
the duty of fair representation. Id. ¶¶ 16–19.
AFA has responded to the Complaint with its Motion. In the Motion, AFA argues
that the Complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim and for lack of

subject-matter jurisdiction. DE 7 at 3–7. AFA also argues that, in the event the action is
not dismissed, it should be transferred to the United States District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois. Id. at 7–8.
In response to AFA's request to transfer or dismiss for improper venue, Ramos
offers no legal argument. Instead, Ramos supplies a fact of questionable relevance: that
United Airlines was domiciled within this District until 2004, nearly a decade before the
events giving rise to this suit. See DE 28 at 1.
However, Ramos has failed entirely to respond to AFA's arguments that his claim
fails on its merits and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction on bases other than improper
venue. See id. A party's failure to respond to arguments for dismissal warrants the grant
of a motion to dismiss by default. E.g., Zemba v. Comcast Corp., No. 14-23928, 2015
WL 3540068 at *3 (S.D. Fla. June 3, 2015); A1 Procurement, LLC v. Hendry Corp., No.
11-23582, 2012 WL 6214546 at *3 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 13, 2012); W. Coast Life Ins. Co. v.
Life Brokerage Partners LLC, No. 08-80897, 2009 WL 2957749 at *11 (S.D. Fla. Sept.
9, 2009). In light of Ramos's failure to offer any opposition to the substance of AFA's
arguments for dismissal, the Court will grant the Motion by default, and will dismiss the
Complaint.1 It is accordingly

1

In his response to the Motion, Ramos states the following: "Should the Court
decide to retain venue, Plaintiff requests one week to amend the Complaint." DE 28
at 1. However, Ramos does not attach a proposed amended pleading, or discuss how
the amendment of his pleading would cure any substantive failures of his claim or a lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction. Moreover, to the extent Ramos's statement may be
construed as a request for leave to file an amended complaint, it is inappropriate to
seek such affirmative relief in a response to a motion. See Silver v. Karp, No. 14-80447,
2014 WL 4248227 at *1 n.1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2014). The Court therefore does not
view Ramos's perfunctory suggestion in his response that he be allowed to amend his
pleading as justifying denial of AFA's request to dismiss this action.

2

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1.

Defendant's Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative to Transfer Venue [DE 7] is
GRANTED by default.

2.

Plaintiff's Complaint [DE 1] is DISMISSED without prejudice.

3.

The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case and DENY any pending
motions as moot.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Fort Lauderdale, Broward County,

Florida, this 29th day of June, 2015.

Copies provided to:
Counsel of record via CM/ECF

3