MACNEILL v. Commonwealth

Filing 14

Judge Douglas P. Woodlock: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered granting 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and directing the Clerk to terminate the case. (Woodlock, Douglas)

Case 1:18-cv-11265-DPW Document 14 Filed 10/25/18 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

PETER MACNEILL,

)
)
Plaintiff/Petitioner
)
)
)
v.
)
)
COMMONWEALTH OF MASSACHUSETTS/)
DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND
)
FAMILIES
)
)
Defendant/Respondent.
)

CIVIL ACTION NO.
18-11265-DPW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
October 25, 2018
The plaintiff/petitioner, Peter MacNeill, seeks
confirmation of an arbitration award arising from a labor
dispute related to his employment by the Department of Children
and Families of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

I conclude

the federal courts have no subject matter jurisdiction over this
dispute and consequently will grant the well-founded motion to
dismiss filed by the defendant/respondent state sovereign.

I

note, in this connection, that Mr. MacNeill has filed no
opposition — timely or otherwise — despite an extended period of
time within which to do so before I acted on this motion.
Although Mr. MacNeill appears to assert in an oblique
narrative fashion in his complaint, without citation to
statutory jurisdictional basis, that a federal question is

Case 1:18-cv-11265-DPW Document 14 Filed 10/25/18 Page 2 of 4

presented under the Labor Management Relations (Taft-Hartley)
Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185,1 and under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9
U.S.C. § 4, neither statute provides this court with authority
to adjudicate this matter through the statutory grant of federal
question jurisdiction provided in 28 U.S.C. § 1331.

Similarly,

although Mr. MacNeill pleads that the “[p]arties in this matter
reside in diverse states,” the relevant grant to federal courts
of diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1), does not
extend to adjudication of public sector labor disputes such as
this when the purportedly diverse state party defendant is not
considered a citizen of any state.
The Supreme Court has recognized that “labor relations
between local governments and their employees are the subject of
a longstanding statutory exemption” from national labor
relations laws.

Jackson Transit Auth. v. Local Div. 1285,

Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO-CLC, 457 U.S. 15, 23 (1982).
Under § 152(2) of the National Labor Relations Act, “[t]he term
“employer” . . . shall not include the United States or any

1
   Section 185 was originally passed as section 301 of the Labor

Management Relations (Taft-Hartley) Act of 1947, ch. 120, 61
Stat. 136 (“LRMA”). The LRMA amended and supplemented the
National Labor Relations Act of 1935, ch. 372, 49 Stat. 449.
See 29 U.S.C. § 141 (stating that §§ 141-191 “may be cited as
the ‘Labor Management Relations Act, 1947.’”); 29 U.S.C. § 167
(stating that 29. U.S.C. §§ 151-169 “may be cited as the
‘National Labor Relations Act’.”)

2

Case 1:18-cv-11265-DPW Document 14 Filed 10/25/18 Page 3 of 4

wholly owned Government corporation, or any Federal Reserve
Bank, or any State or political subdivision thereof” (emphasis
supplied).

See City of Beloit v. Local 643 of Am. Fed'n of

State, Cty. & Mun. Employees, AFL-CIO, 248 F.3d 650, 654 (7th
Cir. 2001) (definition of “employer” excluding “any State or
political subdivision thereof” in 29 U.S.C.
§ 152(2) prevents the plaintiff from taking advantage of 29
U.S.C. § 185(a) to establish jurisdiction).

As a result, this

court does not have federal question jurisdiction pursuant to 29
U.S.C. § 185(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act when, as
here, the defendant is a state entity.
The Federal Arbitration Act does not separately confer
federal question jurisdiction; instead, it requires “an
independent jurisdictional basis.”

Hall St. Assocs., L.L.C. v.

Mattel, Inc., 552 U.S. 576, 582 (2008).

Because federal

question subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, the only
alternative avenue to invoke the Federal Arbitration Act in this
court is through the diversity statute.

But neither a state

itself nor an arm of a state is treated as a citizen for
purposes of the federal diversity statute.

See generally In re

Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Products Liability
Litigation, 76 F. Supp. 3d 268, 270-77 (D. Mass. 2015).
Consequently, this case does not present a dispute between

3

Case 1:18-cv-11265-DPW Document 14 Filed 10/25/18 Page 4 of 4

citizens of different states – as the diversity statute requires
– because the defendant is, if not the state itself, plainly an
integral arm of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
Lacking any cognizable basis for subject matter
jurisdiction over the parties’ dispute, I hereby GRANT the
Commonwealth’s motion to dismiss (Dkt. No. 12) and direct the
Clerk to terminate the matter.

/s/ Douglas P. Woodlock_________
DOUGLAS P. WOODLOCK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

4