McCrohan v. Uxbridge Police Association et al
District Judge Timothy S. Hillman: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER entered denying 249 Motion to Enforce Judgment. (Castles, Martin)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
UXBRIDGE POLICE ASSOCIATION
LOCAL #123, MCOP, AFL-CIO, and
MASSACHUSETTS COALITION OF
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO ENFORCE
(Docket No. 249)
May 26, 2017
In March 2015, a jury awarded plaintiff Tara McCrohan, a one-time police sergeant in
Uxbridge, $439,000 in damages on her claims of defamation and infliction of emotional distress
against defendant Uxbridge Police Association Local 123 (“Local 123”). Because Local 123 had
insufficient assets, McCrohan filed the present motion seeking to enforce her judgment against the
Massachusetts Coalition of Police (MCOP), a state-level union to which Local 123 is affiliated, or
in the alternate, to amend the Complaint to add MCOP as a party.
Central to McCrohan’s motion to enforce judgment is the incorrect assumption that Local
123 and MCOP are the same legal entity. “As a general rule, an international union and its
affiliated locals are deemed to be separate legal entities.” E.E.O.C. v. Ent’l Bro. of Elec. Workers
Local 998, 2005 WL 469600, at *2 (N.D. Ohio Feb. 28, 2005). McCrohan does not dispute that
Local 123 and MCOP exhibit the hallmarks of having distinct legal identities. The two unions
have, inter alia, independent formation and governing documents, non-overlapping leadership,
and separate addresses. Local 123 chose to affiliate with MCOP, but it was not obliged to do so,
and had the authority to disassociate at any time. Under these circumstances, the judgment against
Local 123 cannot be directly enforced against MCOP.
Imposing liability on MCOP under McCrohan’s alternative “alter ego”1 or agency
theories2,3 would require joining it as a defendant to the present case, and this court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over such a proceeding. “It is black-letter law that a federal court has an
While McCrohan does not specifically use the term “alter ego,” at least some of her arguments
describe such a theory of liability.
McCrohan also suggests that MCOP and Local 123 should be treated as one union because they
enjoyed “shared counsel” and “behaved as one entity” during this litigation. However, this
argument is without merit, as MCOP was not a party to this lawsuit, and thus was not
represented by counsel in this case before or during trial. McCrohan’s allegations of misconduct
with respect to discovery similarly fail, as they are predicated on a theory that MCOP was under
a duty to complete disclosure in a case to which it was not a party at the time.
There is longstanding precedent that agency law principles be used to distinguish where a wider
union is responsible for the tortious acts of local unions. See Carbon Fuel Co. v. United Mine
Workers of America, 444 U.S. 212, 217-218, 100 S. Ct. 410 (1979) (declining to hold an
“International” union liable for illegal acts that it did not instigate, ratify, support or encourage,
acts that were contrary to the constitution of the “International,” and that had in fact been
opposed by it, concluding that the petitioner had “failed to prove agency.”); Coronado Coal Co.
v. United Mine Workers of America, 268 U.S. 295, 304 (1925) (“a trades union … might be held
liable, and all its funds … might be levied upon to pay damages suffered through illegal methods
… but certainly it must be clearly shown in order to impose such a liability … that what was
done was done by their agents in accordance with their fundamental agreement of association.”);
Borowiec v. Local No. 1570, 889 F.2d 23, 26 (1st Cir. 1989) (citing Abreen Corp. v. Laborers'
Internat'l Union, 709 F.2d 748, 757 (1st Cir.1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1040, 104 S.Ct. 702
(1984); Carbon Fuel, 444 U.S. at 213-17, 100 S. Ct. at 412-14) (“A plaintiff seeking to place
liability on an international for a local's allegedly illegal conduct must  show that the local
acted as the international's agent or that the international independently participated in the
unlawful conduct.”). Accordingly, MCOP could potentially be held liable and its funds levied to
pay damages if the tortious action of Local 123 was executed in accordance with its fundamental
agreement of association with MCOP, if Local 123 was acting as an agent of MCOP, or if
MCOP independently participated in the defamation and infliction of emotional distress.
obligation to inquire sua sponte into its own subject matter jurisdiction.” McCulloch v. Velez, 364
F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2004) (citing In re Recticel Foam Corp., 859 F.2d 1000, 1002 (1st Cir.1988);
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3)). “Where [a] postjudgment proceeding presents a new substantive theory
to establish liability directly on the part of a new party, some independent ground is necessary to
assume federal jurisdiction over the claim, since such a claim is no longer a mere continuation of
the original action.” U.S.I. Properties Corp. v. M.D. Const. Co., 230 F.3d 489, 498 (1st Cir. 2000)
(citing Thomas, Head & Greisen Employees Trust v. Buster, 95 F.3d 1449, 1454 n.7 (9th Cir.
1996); See also Peacock v. Thomas, 516 U.S. 349, 359, 116 S. Ct. 862, 869 (1996), 116 S.Ct. 862;
Futura Dev. of Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Estado Libre Asociado de Puerto Rico, 144 F.3d 7, 11 n.2 (1st
Cir. 1998) (“[Enforcement jurisdiction] cannot extend to most cases that seek to assign liability
for the judgment to a new party.”); Sandlin v. Corp. Interiors Inc., 972 F.2d 1212, 1217 (10th Cir.
1992) (citing H.C. Cook Co. v. Beecher, 217 U.S. 497, 30 S.Ct. 601 (1910) (“[W]hen postjudgment
proceedings seek to hold nonparties liable for a judgment on a theory that requires proof on facts
and theories significantly different from those underlying the judgment, an independent basis for
federal jurisdiction must exist.”)).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), this Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction over
McCrohan’s state law claims against Local 123 because her original Complaint included a federal
claim for a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, codified at 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e),
et seq. Upon the entry of judgment, that subject matter jurisdiction “vanished.” Peacock, 516
U.S. at 355. McCrohan’s alterative enforcement theories are not “a mere continuation” of the
underlying claims because they depend on the relationship and control between MCOP and Local
123 – facts that differ significantly from those underlying the judgment against Local 123 for
defamation and infliction of emotional distress. As these enforcement theories raise no federal
question, and the parties are not diverse, this court lacks subject jurisdiction over these proposed
While the court appreciates McCrohan’s frustration, at this point the court is limited to
enforcing the judgment against the only party found liable in this case, Local 123, and will only
consider any properly filed motion on that topic.
For the reasons set forth above the plaintiff’s motion (Docket No. 249) is denied.
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
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?