Martin et al v. Local 556, Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO

Filing 70

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER denying 69 MOTION for Reconsideration re 67 Memorandum Opinion and Order filed by Local 556 Transportation Workers Union of America AFL-CIO. (Ordered by Judge Sidney A Fitzwater on 5/23/2016) (Judge Sidney A Fitzwater)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
STACY K. MARTIN, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
VS.
LOCAL 556, TRANSPORTATION
WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA,
AFL-CIO,
Defendant.

§
§
§
§ Civil Action No. 3:14-CV-0500-D
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

MEMORANDUM OPINION
AND ORDER
Defendant Local 556, Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO (“TWU
Local”) moves for reconsideration of part of the court’s memorandum opinion and order
granting in part and denying in part TWU Local’s motion for summary judgment. See
Martin v. Local 556, Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-CIO, 2016 WL 2914791 (N.D.
Tex. May 19, 2016) (Fitzwater, J.) (“Martin III”). The court denies the motion.*
Pertinent to this motion, the court in Martin III refused to dismiss the claims of
plaintiffs Chris Click (“Click”), Stacy K. Martin, and Jerry Lindemann that TWU Local
infringed their rights to a full and fair hearing, in violation of 29 U.S.C. §§ 411, 412, and
529, when it denied them access to an unbiased tribunal. Id. at *7-9. TWU Local contends
*

Under § 205(a)(5) of the E-Government Act of 2002 and the definition of “written
opinion” adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States, this is a “written opinion[]
issued by the court” because it “sets forth a reasoned explanation for [the] court’s decision.”
It has been written, however, primarily for the parties, to decide issues presented in this case,
and not for publication in an official reporter, and should be understood accordingly.

that this claim should have been dismissed with respect to Click’s Article XXI trial because
Click did not file an appeal regarding his Article XXI trial or result with the TWU
International Committee on Appeals, and thus did not exhaust his internal remedies. TWU
Local also maintains that it raised this issue on page 10 of its brief in support of its motion
for summary judgment and again on pages 5 through 6 of its reply brief.
Page 10 of TWU Local’s supporting brief does not raise this issue. In fact, the only
relevant statement on this page concerning Click’s unbiased tribunal claim is that “[a]ll three
plaintiffs received full and fair hearings.” D. Br. 10. TWU Local mentions in the fact
section of its supporting brief that Click did not appeal his Article XXI trial. See id. at 4
(“All three plaintiffs appealed these [Executive Board] decisions to the TWU International
Committee on Appeals, except that plaintiff Click did not appeal his Article XXI hearing
result, appealing only the Article XIX Trial Committee recommendation adopted by the
[Executive Board].”); see also id. at 6 (“Click did not seek appellate review of his Article
XXI decision, only his Article XIX trial decision.”). But in its supporting brief TWU Local
never raises its exhaustion argument as to Click’s Article XXI trial.
This argument is raised for the first time in TWU Local’s reply brief. See D. Reply
5-6 (asserting that “Click did not appeal his Article XXI hearing result, and has failed to
exhaust his internal union remedies as required by law”) (emphasis omitted). But this court
has long declined to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief. See, e.g.,
Jacobs v. Tapscott, 2006 WL 2728827, at *7 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 25, 2006) (Fitzwater, J.)
(“[T]he court will not consider an argument raised for the first time in a reply brief.” (citing
-2-

Senior Unsecured Creditors’ Comm. of First RepublicBank Corp. v. FDIC, 749 F. Supp. 758,
772 (N.D. Tex. 1990) (Fitzwater, J.))), aff’d, 277 Fed. Appx. 483 (5th Cir. 2008). If TWU
Local were allowed to present new arguments through a reply brief, it would effectively deny
plaintiffs a fair opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Xtria LLC v. Tracking Sys., Inc., 2007 WL
2719884, at *4 (N.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2007) (Fitzwater, J.).
Accordingly, because TWU Local is not entitled to reconsideration of Martin III on
the ground asserted, the court denies TWU Local’s motion to reconsider.
SO ORDERED.
May 23, 2016.

_________________________________
SIDNEY A. FITZWATER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-3-