Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO v. CCR Fire Protection, LLC et al

Filing 78

RULING AND ORDER granting in part 24 Motion to Dismiss. The claims against Bhatka in Plaintiff's 54 Substituted Amended Complaint are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Plaintiff be granted leave to file within thirty (30) days of this Ruling an Amended Complaint to allege, if he can, factual allegations to supportjurisdiction of Rajendra Bhatka in his individual capacity. Signed by Judge John W. deGravelles on 7/5/2017. (SGO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
ROAD SPRINKLER FITTERS
UNION NO. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO

CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:16-CV-448

VERSUS

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES

CCR FIRE PROTECTION, LLC

MAGISTRATE JUDGE
ERIN WILDER-DOOMES

RULING AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Rajendra Bhakta’s (“Bhatka”) Motion
to Dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 24.) Plaintiff
Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., AFL-CIO (“Plaintiff”) has filed an
Opposition (Doc. 39), and Bhatka filed a Reply memorandum (Doc. 50).1 Oral argument is not
necessary. After carefully considering the law, the arguments of the parties, and the documents
attached to Plaintiff’s Original and Amended Complaints, for the reasons stated below,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the claims against Bhatka in Plaintiff’s Substituted
Amended Complaint (Doc. 54) are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because the
documents Plaintiff submitted as an exhibit to its original and substituted amended complaints
(see Docs. 1-1 at 1—2; 54-1 at 1—2, 5—7) indicate that Bhatka, in his individual capacity, was
not a signatory to the collective bargaining agreement (“CBA”) between Plaintiff and CCR; that
he did not participate in the CBA negotiations; and that, consequently, he had no involvement in
the settlement negotiations that arose out of CCR’s alleged breach of the CBA. Specifically, in

1

The factual and procedural history of this case is outlined in Judge Wilder-Doomes’ Ruling and Order on
Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File First Amended Complaint (see Doc. 53 at 1—3), and is incorporated by
reference herein.

1

the original and substituted amended complaints, Plaintiff attached a copy of the CBA between it
and CCR; Bhatka’s signature does not appear anywhere on the contract. (Docs. 1-1 at 1—2; 54-1
at 1—2.) Then, in its substituted amended complaint, Plaintiff also attached as an exhibit a letter
from Bhatka’s attorney directed to Plaintiff’s counsel (Doc. 54-1 at 5—7), which Plaintiff cited
in support of its contention that Bhatka held one-half of the majority interest in CCR, which
according to CCR’s own operating agreement, necessarily meant that Bhatka had to personally
approve major decisions within CCR. (Id. at 5.) It was Plaintiff’s intent to establish that Bhatka
was personally liable and thus the Court could exercise its long-arm jurisdiction over Bhatka, a
Tennessee resident,2 by virtue of the fact that CCR, in theory, cannot bind itself to decisions and
actions without the consent of a majority of the members. (Doc. 39 at 2.)
Although Plaintiff purports to impute liability to Bhatka in his individual capacity by
submitting the CBA between CCR and Plaintiff as well as the letter from Bhatka’s attorney,
these same documents also undermine the factual basis for Bhatka’s liability. Specifically, the
letter from Bhatka’s attorney stated: “Mr. Bhatka (26% owner) never executed either of the
putative contracts between CCR and Local 669. Moreover… Mr. Bhatka [has never] authorized
by way of vote or resolution or by affirmatively stating [his] consent to such agreement.” (Doc.
54-1 at 6.) This statement, taken in connection with the signed CBA between Plaintiff and CCR
that conspicuously lacks Bhatka’s signature, creates a reasonable inference that Bhatka never had
any involvement in the negotiations between CCR and Plaintiff, the resulting CBA, or CCR’s
subsequent breach and settlement agreement. Plaintiff has not set forth any documentation, nor
has it alleged anything beyond conclusory allegations, to even suggest that Bhatka was
personally involved in the CBA, its breach, or the resulting settlement upon which CCR reneged.

2

Plaintiff initially alleged that Bhatka is a resident of Louisiana (Doc. 1 at 3), but later corrected this misstatement
in its substituted amended complaint to reflect that Bhatka is in fact a Tennessee resident. (Doc. 54 at 3.)

2

In light of the foregoing, it appears as though the Court cannot exercise its long-arm
jurisdiction to assert specific personal jurisdiction over Bhatka. To attempt to exercise
jurisdiction over this foreign defendant, who it appears did not have any personal involvement in
the breach of contract that gave rise to the instant action, would “offend traditional notions of fair
play and substantial justice.” Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915,
923 (2011); Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945); see also Burger King Corp.
v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 476 (1985); Int’l Energy Ventures Mgmt., L.L.C. v. United Energy
Group, Ltd., 818 F.3d 193, 212 (5th Cir. 2016). Following a nonresident’s 12(b)(2) motion to
dismiss, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction over the
defendant. Employers Mut. Cas. Co. v. Gemini Ins. Co., 13-816, 2014 WL 3887710, at *2 (M.D.
La. Aug. 6, 2014) (Jackson, C.J.) (quoting Stuart v. Spademan, 772 F.2d 1185, 1992 (5th Cir.
1985)). Considering the above, Plaintiff has failed to meet its burden of establishing that the
Court has jurisdiction over Bhatka. Accordingly, the claims against Bhatka must be dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be granted leave to file within thirty (30)
days of this Ruling an Amended Complaint to allege, if he can, factual allegations to support
jurisdiction of Rajendra Bhatka in his individual capacity.
Signed in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, on July 5, 2017.

S

JUDGE JOHN W. deGRAVELLES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

3