Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico, Inc. v. Union Independiente de Trabajadores de Servicios Legales
Filing
8
ORDER re 1 Verified Complaint and 4 Motion for TRO. Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico ("SLPR")'s verified complaint (Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and SLPR's TRO motion (Docket No. 4) is MOOT. Signed by Judge Francisco A. Besosa on 04/25/2019. (GLS)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO
SERVICIOS LEGALES
RICO, INC.,
DE
PUERTO
Plaintiff,
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
v.
UNIÓN
INDEPENDIENTE
DE
TRABAJADORES
DE
SERVICIOS
LEGALES, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
BESOSA, District Judge.
On April 22, 2019, plaintiff Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico,
Inc. (“SLPR”) filed a verified complaint (Docket No. 1) and moved
for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) against defendant Unión
Independiente de Trabajadores de Servicios Legales (“Union”) and
any other persons in active concert or participation with the Union
(collectively, “defendants”) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 65(b) (“Rule 65(b)”).
(Docket No. 4.)
For the reasons
set forth below, the Court DISMISSES SLPR’s verified complaint
without prejudice (Docket No. 1) and renders SLPR’s TRO motion
(Docket No. 4) as MOOT.
I.
Background
SLPR and the Union are parties to a collective bargaining
agreement
(“CBA”)
that
governs
SLPR’s
employees
who
are
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
represented by the Union.
2
(Docket No. 6, Ex. 2.)
force until April 30, 2019.
Id. at p. 9.
The CBA is in
Article 7 of the CBA
requires that “[a]ll controversies, disputes, and complaints based
on the application or interpretation of the provisions of [the
CBA]” be resolved through mandatory grievance and arbitration
procedures.
Id. at p. 3.
Pursuant to Article 8 of the CBA,
The Union, therefore, agrees that neither it nor any of
the SLPR’s workers who are part of the bargaining unit
covered by [the CBA] may, collectively, individually, or
in concert, dedicate and/or participate, directly or
indirectly, in strikes of any nature, slow-down,
interruption or work stoppage, picketing, boycott, or
any other kind of interference and/or interruption of
SLPR’s operations and activities, of any Direct Service
Center, division, office, warehouse, work unit or
special detachment of it.
Id. at p. 8.
On April 22, 2019, SLPR filed a verified complaint to “enjoin
defendants’ and employees’ acts that interfere with plaintiff’s
operation and other acts that violate” the CBA, pursuant 29 U.S.C.
sections 185(a) and 187.
(Docket No. 1 at p. 1.)1
The verified
complaint maintains that on April 22, 2019, the Union announced it
would commence a work stoppage
to protest the treatment and
termination of workers by SLPR.
(Docket No. 1 at p. 4.)
SLPR
alleges that the Union work stoppage commenced on April 22, 2019
The Court has federal question jurisdiction to address SLPR’s claims pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. section 1331.
1
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
3
at 1:00 p.m. at SLPR centers in Ponce and Guayama, Puerto Rico.
(Docket No. 4 at pp. 1-2.)
According to the verified complaint,
the Union President listed SLPR’s alleged mistreatment of workers,
burdensome job conditions, and employment terminations as reasons
for the work stoppage.
(Docket No. 1 at p. 4.)
The verified
complaint states that “SLPR has requested that the Union cease and
desist from the activities in question, and publicly call off the
sit-in and work stoppage, and resolve all disputes arising under
the [CBA] by way of the mandatory grievance and arbitration
procedure contained in Article 7 of the [CBA].”
Id.
The verified
complaint contends that SLPR “has resorted to every procedure
available under the [CBA] to resolve all arbitrable disputes in
order to avoid the need to seek the intervention of the Court,”
but that “the Union has refused, and continues to refuse, to end
its unlawful actions.”
Id.
Pursuant to the verified complaint, “the delays incident to
securing relief from the conduct at issue will result in grave and
irreparable damages to SLPR’s services before such relief can be
obtained.”
(Docket No. 1 at p. 5.)
Namely, the verified complaint
maintains that,
[a]s a direct consequence of defendants’ unlawful
concerted activities, SLPR will suffer permanent and
irreparable damage and injury in the form of lost
goodwill, diminished customer confidence with regards to
prompt
and
efficient
customer
service,
probable
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
4
permanent loss of customers, diminished volume of
business, loss of revenue, and insurance claims. These
losses are estimated to be $25,000 a day.
Id.
SLPR alleges that it “has no adequate remedy at law for the
injuries already caused and the threat of further injury by
defendants’ illegal conduct.”
II.
Id. at p. 6.
Legal Standard
Pursuant to 29 U.S.C. section 185(a), a federal district court
may enjoin a concerted activity based on a dispute that is subject
to arbitration through a valid CBA.
Boys Mkts., Inc. v. Retail
Clerks Union, Local 770, 398 U.S. 235, 254 (1970).
In the context
of CBA violations,
[t]hree prerequisites for obtaining injunctive relief
must be met: (1) the [CBA] must contain mandatory
arbitration procedures; (2) the strike to be enjoined
must be over an arbitrable grievance; and (3) “ordinary
principles of equity” must warrant the injunctive
relief.
Int’l Detective Serv., Inc. v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, Chauffeurs,
Warehousemen & Helpers of Am., Local 251, 614 F.2d 29, 31 (1st
Cir. 1980) (citing Boys Mkts., 398 U.S. at 253-54).
enjoin
such
concerted
activity
because
Courts may
“[s]triking
over
an
arbitrable dispute would interfere with and frustrate the arbitral
processes by which the parties had chosen to settle a dispute.”
Buffalo Forge Co. v. United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, 428 U.S.
397, 407 (1976); see Int’l Detective Serv., 614 F.2d at 31-32
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
5
(upholding an injunction prohibiting the union from engaging in
concerted activities over an arbitral dispute pursuant to a valid
CBA).
A TRO “is a provisional remedy imposed to maintain the status
quo until a full review of the facts and legal arguments is
available.”
Ginzburg v. Martínez-Dávila, -- F. Supp. 3d --, 2019
WL 1380156, at *2 (D.P.R. Mar. 26, 2019) (Besosa, J.) (quoting
Pro-Choice Network v. Schenck, 67 F.3d 377, 389-99 (2d Cir. 1995)).
The standard for issuing a TRO is “the same as for a preliminary
injunction.”
Me. 2013).
Bourgoin v. Sebelius, 928 F. Supp. 2d 258, 267 (D.
Preliminary injunctive relief relies on the following
four factors:
(i) the likelihood that the movant will succeed on the
merits;
(ii)
the
possibility
that,
without
an
injunction, the movant will suffer irreparable harm;
(iii) the balance of relevant hardships as between the
parties; and (iv) the effect of the court's ruling on
the
public
interest.
Coquico, Inc. v. Rodríguez-Miranda, 562 F.3d 62, 66 (1st Cir. 2009)
(citation omitted).
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic
remedy that is never awarded as of right.”
Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank
v. People’s United Bank, 672 F.3d 1, 8-9 (1st Cir. 2012) (citation
omitted).
Granting a preliminary injunction or TRO is “a matter
for the discretion of the district court and is reversible, of
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
6
course, only for an abuse of discretion.”
Planned Parenthood
League of Mass. v. Bellotti, 641 F.2d 1006, 1009 (1st Cir. 1981)
(citation
omitted).
The
plaintiff
shoulders
establishing whether a TRO is warranted.
the
burden
of
Peoples Fed. Sav. Bank,
672 F.3d at 9.
III. Discussion
Several
internal
inconsistencies
between
SLPR’s
verified
complaint and TRO motion reveal that both filings were entirely
copied
and
pasted
from
the
amended
verified
complaint
and
memorandum of law submitted in P.R. Tel. Co. v. Unión Indep. de
Empleados
Telefonicos,
(Domínguez, J.).
No.
10-1054
(D.P.R.
Jan.
27,
2010)
Compare Docket Nos. 1 & 4 with P.R. Tel. Co.,
No. 10-1054, Docket No. 1 & Docket No. 1, Ex. 1.
SLPR’s motion
for a TRO names the “Puerto Rico Telephone Co.” instead of SLPR in
several locations throughout the legal memorandum (Docket No. 4 at
pp.
2
&
9),
and
many
portions
of
SLPR’s
pleadings
describe
qualities or harms relevant to a corporate business entity, rather
than a legal services provider.
See Docket No. 1 at p. 5.
Like the other portions of SLPR’s filings, the statement of
facts and irreparable harm alleged in SLPR’s verified complaint
and TRO motion are nearly verbatim copies of the facts and injuries
alleged in P.R. Tel. Co., No. 10-1054, Docket No. 1 & Docket No.
1, Ex. 1.
For example, SLPR’s verified complaint states that SLPR
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
will suffer
diminished
irreparable
customer
7
harm “in the form of lost goodwill,
confidence
with
regards
to
prompt
and
efficient customer service, probable permanent loss of customers,
diminished volume of business, loss of revenue, and insurance
claims.”
(Docket No. 1 at p. 5.)
Not only is this language
identical to that used in P.R. Tel. Co., No. 10-1054, Docket No.
1, but also the description reflects potential injuries to a
corporate business entity, not a legal services provider.
The Court declines to overlook these flagrant errors and
refuses to rely on the veracity of the facts and harm alleged in
SLPR’s submissions.
This attorney work product is unacceptable,
demonstrates a lack of professionalism on the part of counsel and
the firm that employs him, and undermines the integrity of the
Court.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES SLPR’s verified complaint
without prejudice (Docket No. 1) and renders SLPR’s TRO motion
(Docket No. 4) as MOOT.
Civil No. 19-1379 (FAB)
IV.
8
Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, SLPR’s verified complaint
(Docket No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and SLPR’s motion
for a TRO (Docket No. 4) is MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
San Juan, Puerto Rico, April 25, 2019.
s/ Francisco A. Besosa
FRANCISCO A. BESOSA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?