General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89 v. Clariant Corporation
Filing
23
MEMORANDUM OPINION signed by Senior Judge Charles R. Simpson, III on 7/13/2016, re Defendant's 17 MOTION to Dismiss. The Court will enter a separate order in accordance with this Opinion. cc:counsel (RLK)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY
AT LOUISVILLE
GENERAL DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN
AND HELPERS LOCAL UNION NO. 89
PLAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:16-CV-00051-CRS
v.
CLARIANT CORPORATION
DEFENDANT
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This lawsuit continues where a previous dispute between these parties left off. In a recent
matter in front of this court, General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89
(the “Union”) unsuccessfully sought to compel Clariant Corporation (“Clariant”) to arbitrate
certain grievances under a collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”). This court determined that
the parties entered into an enforceable agreement settling these grievances. As the CBA did not
mandate arbitration for settled grievances, the court granted Clariant summary judgment on all
claims against it. See General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 89 v.
Clariant Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00051-CRS (Sept. 15, 2015).
The Union now alleges that Clariant breached the agreement that the Union once
maintained did not exist. Clariant moves to dismiss this new suit for failure to state a claim for
which relief can be granted. The Court will grant Clariant’s motion.
STANDARD
When evaluating a motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), the Court must
determine whether the complaint alleges “sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a
claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting
1
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)) (internal quotation marks omitted). A
claim is plausible if “the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the
reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. (citing Twombly,
550 U.S. at 556). Although the complaint need not contain “detailed factual allegations,” “a
plaintiff’s obligation to provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief requires more than labels
and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.”
Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 (internal quotation marks and alteration omitted).
DISCUSSION
This court previously held that these parties reached a settlement agreement regarding
certain vacation benefit grievances. Am. Compl. ¶ 12, ECF No. 15. According to the Union’s
Amended Complaint,
Under the terms of the settlement agreement, the Company agreed … to compensate the
class action grievants if the Article XII vacation language in the collective bargaining
agreement … was modified as a result of 2015 contract negotiations.
Id. ¶ 10 (emphasis added). The Union points to no other relevant terms of the agreement. This
written agreement makes no promise to provide or even negotiate these benefits.
The apparent crux of the Union’s new complaint is that Clariant:
refuse[s] to negotiate with the Union regarding [ ] Article XII, the vacation language, in
the 2015 CBA. Because of the Company’s refusal to negotiate, the class action grievants
have not been paid from a modification of the contract.
Id. ¶ 15. The Union’s alleged conduct does not constitute a breach of the Union’s stated terms
of the agreement. An agreement to pay grievants conditioned upon the result of contract
negotiations is not an agreement to pay grievants regardless of negotiation outcomes. These are
different agreements.
2
The Union also argues that Clariant failed to present extrinsic evidence. Pl.’s Resp. 1,
ECF No. 21. A successful motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) does not require any extrinsic
evidence. Instead, the Court looks to the four corners of the complaint to determine whether the
complainant has alleged sufficient facts, accepted as true, to state a plausible claim to relief. See
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Clariant has successfully shown that the Union’s alleged facts are
insufficient to state a claim for breach of contract. The court will grant Clariant’s motion.
CONCLUSION
The Court will grant Clariant’s motion to dismiss and dismiss the Union’s claims with
prejudice.
The Court will enter a separate order in accordance with this opinion.
July 13, 2016
C al R Smpo I , ei J d e
h r s . i sn I Sno u g
e
I
r
U i dSae Ds i C ut
nt tt ir t o r
e
s tc
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?