Teamsters Local Union No. 639 v. Transdev Services, Inc.

Filing 38

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Peter J. Messitte on 2/7/2024. (bas, Deputy Clerk)

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO.639, * * Plaintiff, * V. * Civil Action No.23-780-PJM TRANSDEV SERVICES,INC. * Defendant. MEMORANDUM OPINION Teamsters Local UnioaNo^^P (the "Union") has filed a Motion for Attorney's Fees and accompanying documentation in compliance with the Court's Local Rule 109.2 and Appendix B to the Rules(ECF No. 33). Transdev has filed a response in opposition (ECF Nos. 34, 36), and the Union has replied(ECF No. 37). The Courtjlyads no hearing necessary, D. Md.Local R. 105.6. For the following reasons, the^C^rt will GRANT the Union's Motion for Attorney's Fees(ECF No. 33), albeit slightly reduced. BACKGROUND In this action to enforce an arbitration award, the Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union on November 22, 2023. See ECF Nos. 31, 32. In its Memorandum Opinion of that date, the Court also found that an award of reasonable attorney's fees to the Union was appropriate because, in the Court's view, Transdev had litigated the case "without justification." ECF No. 31 at 12 (citing United Food & Com. Workers, Local 400 v. Marval Poultry Co., 876 F.2d 346, 350 (4th Cir. 1989)). Specifically, the Court found that Transdev's "fail[ure] to raise the issue of mitigation of damages" in the arbitration proceeding underlying this dispute was comparable to the employer's decision in MarvalPoultry to "sit idle while an arbitration decision[was]rendered"then 1

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?