Mohawk Re-Bar Services Inc. v. Local Union No. 17 International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental, and Reinforcing Iron Workers et al

Filing 60

Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for an order setting a briefing schedule for a motion to amend the complaint (Related Doc # 48 ); granting Plaintiff's Motion to clarify the Court's prior dismissal(Related Doc # 55 ); denying Plaintiff's Motion to stay the proceedings(Related Doc # 55 ). See order for details. Judge John R. Adams on 9/14/16.(L,J)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

Mohawk Re-Bar Services, Inc.,
Plaintiff,
v.
Local Union No. 17, et al.,

Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO.: 1:14CV137
JUDGE JOHN ADAMS

ORDER

Pending before the Court are two post-dismissal motions filed by Plaintiff
Mohawk Re-Bar Services, Inc. (“Mohawk”). On October 5, 2015, Mohawk requested
the Court set a briefing schedule (Doc. 48) so that it could file a post-dismissal motion to
amend the complaint a second time. The motion was opposed, Mohawk replied, and
thereafter the matter was reassigned to the undersigned. Following reassignment of the
matter, Mohawk moved to clarify the dismissal entry, requesting that the Court find that
the dismissal was without prejudice. Doc. 55. Within that same motion, Mohawk sought
to stay the proceedings pending the outcome of a grievance procedure. All of the

defendants have opposed this motion as well. Upon review, the motion to set a briefing
schedule is DENIED. The motion to clarify is GRANTED as set forth herein.
On September 24, 2015, the previously-assigned judge in this matter dismissed
Mohawk’s first amended complaint. In the judgment entry filed the same day as the
memorandum of opinion, the Court noted:

“This Court, having contemporaneously

entered a Memorandum of Opinion and Order granting the defendants’ motions to
dismiss, dismisses this matter in its entirety.”
Mohawk contends that the prior dismissal was silent as to whether it was with or
without prejudice. Mohawk, therefore, requests that this Court clarify and find that the
entire dismissal was without prejudice. Mohawk’s contentions are well taken in part, and
the Court hereby clarifies the dismissal entry.
Mohawk is correct that its claim for breach of the Favored Nations Clause was
dismissed for failing to exhaust the grievance procedures available to it. As the Sixth
Circuit has noted, “sustaining a motion to dismiss for failure to exhaust the grievance
procedure provided in a collective bargaining agreement results only in a dismissal of the
action without prejudice.” Durham v. Mason & Dixon Lines, Inc., 404 F.2d 864, 865 (6th
Cir. 1968). Mohawk, however, appears concerned over even this result due to arguments
by defendants that Mohawk would be untimely if it sought to utilize the grievance
procedure at such a late date. This Court need not review such an argument. Rather, this
Court must only decide whether its dismissal, standing alone, precludes pursuing the
grievance procedure.

As noted above, as the dismissal was by its nature without

prejudice, it does not preclude pursuing the grievance process. 1

1

The Court would note that since this dismissal involves the Court’s lack of jurisdiction over the claims,
any alternative reasons given for dismissal cannot be construed as a dismissal on the merits.

Mohawk’s contentions regarding the dismissal of its anti-trust claims are not well
taken. First, Mohawk appears to contend that since the Court found that it lacked
antitrust standing, the dismissal was without prejudice. In so arguing, Mohawk ignores
that antitrust standing and constitutional standing are distinct legal concepts. See Ross v.
Bank of Am., N.A.(USA), 524 F.3d 217, 222 (2d Cir. 2008) (“A court proceeds to an
antitrust standing analysis only after Article III standing has been established”); see also
Static Control Components, Inc. v. Lexmark Int’l, Inc., 697 F.3d 387, 405 (6th Cir. 2012)
aff'd, ––– U.S. ––––, ––––, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188, ––– L.Ed.2d ––––, –––– (2014)
(“Antitrust causation is much more limited than Article III standing”); Hyland v.
Homeservices of Am., Inc., 2008 WL 4000546, at *3 (W.D.Ky. Aug.25, 2008) (“Antitrust
standing “requires more than the constitutional minimum for the ‘case or controversy’
that brings jurisdiction to Article III court”). 2 As the Court review the merits of the
antitrust standing, it would be appropriate to find the dismissal to be with prejudice.
More importantly, Mohawk wholly ignores that the Court also found that its
antitrust claims were barred by the non-statutory labor exemption. Mohawk has raised no
argument to suggest why, following that merits review, that the dismissal should be
without prejudice. Accordingly, the Court finds that dismissal of both the federal and
state law antitrust claims involved a merits review and the dismissal of those claims is
therefore with prejudice.
The motion to clarify is GRANTED. The breach of the Favored Nations Clause
claim was dismissed without prejudice. The remaining claims were dismissed with
prejudice. The Court finds no basis to set a briefing schedule to allow for a second

2

As a result, the Court’s alternative review of the non-statutory exemption was appropriate. Having
established jurisdiction over the claim, the Court was free to review any aspect of its deficiencies.

amended complaint, so the motion requesting such a schedule is DENIED. Similarly, the
Court finds no basis to stay these proceedings pending completion of the grievance
procedure.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 14, 2016

____/s/ Judge John R. Adams_______
JUDGE JOHN R. ADAMS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT