Schneider v. United Parcel Service, Inc.
Memorandum of Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 7/9/15. The Court grants defendants' motion to dismiss and denies their motions for sanctions and to transfer. Plaintiff's motion to remand is denied. (Related Docs. 5 , 7 , 8 ) (M,G)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE, et al.,
CASE NO. 1:15 CV 472
JUDGE JAMES S. GWIN
MEMORANDUM OF OPINION
This case was originally filed in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas by
Plaintiff Alan Schneider against Defendants United Parcel Service (UPS) and Teamsters Local
407. Defendants jointly removed the case to this Court on March 11, 2015, asserting that
Plaintiff’s claims for relief “necessarily require interpretation of the collective bargaining
agreement governing his former employment and thus are preempted by Section 301 of the Labor
Management Relations Act (LMRA), 29 U.S.C. § 185.” Doc. #1, p.2.
Plaintiff’s brief Complaint, which is very difficult to decipher, sets forth general
allegations that he was terminated from his employment with UPS in retaliation for “reporting
certain unlawful activities,” possibly involving a truck safety issue. He further alleges Local 407
did not protect him concerning a dispute about his time card. Finally, he alleges that:
Defendants harassed and discriminated against him; a video camera used by UPS invaded his
privacy; and, he was not permitted to retrieve personal belongings after he was terminated.
Now before the Court is Defendants’ joint Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Sanctions
(Doc #5), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand and Dismiss the Teamster Local 407 (Doc # 8).1
The Motion to Dismiss asserts Plaintiff’s action is barred by the doctrine of res judicata, is
preempted by federal law, and that he otherwise fails to state a valid claim for relief.
This Court takes notice of its own records in observing that Plaintiff filed an action in
2009 in this Court against these same Defendants concerning his termination from UPS, asserting
violation of the collective bargaining agreement governing Plaintiff’s employment. Schneider v.
Teamsters Local 407, N.D. Ohio Case No. 1:09 CV 1749. That case was dismissed for failure to
state a claim on May 27, 2010.
Defendants are correct that Plaintiff does not set forth an arguable claim for relief in the
instant case - see, Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 pleading standard
requires more than an unadorned, the defendant-harmed-me accusation) - and that any claim
arising out of his 2009 termination is barred by the doctrine of res judicata in any event. See,
e.g., Gargallo v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 918 F.2d 658, 660 (6th Cir. 1990)
(res judicata bars relitigation of every issue actually brought before the court and every issue or
defense that could have been raised in the previous action).
Accordingly, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss is granted. Their Motion for Sanctions and
Motion to Transfer (Doc #7) are denied. Plaintiff’s Motion to Remand is also denied. This
action is dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
s/ James S. Gwin
JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Dated: July 9, 2015
Plaintiff does not provide a substantive challenge to federal question jurisdiction
over this case. Instead, he states simply that “the Statute of Limitations of six
months causes the Federal Causes of action no longer to apply.” Doc. #8.
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?