Diamond Concrete LLC et al v. Pacific Northwest Regional Council of the United States Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joinders of America et al
Filing
27
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 18 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle. (MGC)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA
4
5
6
DIAMOND CONCRETE, LLC, a
Washington corporation; et. al.,
CASE NO. C11-5360BHS
7
Plaintiffs,
8
v.
12
ORDER GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
BASED ON THE
APPLICABLE STATUTE OF
LIMITATION PERIOD
13
This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ motion for partial summary
9
10
PACIFIC NORTHWEST REGIONAL
COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS; et. al.,
Defendants.
11
14
judgment on Plaintiffs’ defamation and Section 303 claims (Dkt. 18). The Court has
15
reviewed the briefs filed in support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder
16
of the file and hereby grants in part and denies in part Defendants’ motion as discussed
17
herein.
18
19
20
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
This matter arises out of Plaintiffs’ dispute with a labor union. See generally Dkt. 1
(Complaint). On May 10, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced this action and alleged, among
21
other things, that Defendants made defamatory statements about Plaintiffs and violated
22
23
24
25
the laws on secondary boycotts under Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations
Act (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 187. See Complaint.
On June 7, 2011, Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on Plaintiffs’
26
defamation and § 303 claims. Dkt. 18. On June 27, 2011, Plaintiffs responded in
27
opposition to Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment. Dkt. 19. On July 1,
28
ORDER - 1
1
2011, Defendants replied. Dkt. 23. The instant motion concerns whether or not the
2
applicable statutes of limitation bar Plaintiffs’ allegations of defamation and their Section
3
303 claim.
4
5
6
7
8
II. DISCUSSION
A.
Summary Judgment Standard
Summary judgment is proper only if the pleadings, the discovery and disclosure
materials on file, and any affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material
fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
9
The moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law when the nonmoving party
10
11
12
13
fails to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of a claim in the case on which
the nonmoving party has the burden of proof. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323
(1986). There is no genuine issue of fact for trial where the record, taken as a whole,
14
could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec.
15
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986) (nonmoving party must
16
present specific, significant probative evidence, not simply “some metaphysical doubt”).
17
See also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). Conversely, a genuine dispute over a material fact exists if
18
there is sufficient evidence supporting the claimed factual dispute, requiring a judge or
19
jury to resolve the differing versions of the truth. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477
20
U.S. 242, 253 (1986); T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc. v. Pac. Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 809 F.2d
21
626, 630 (9th Cir. 1987).
22
23
24
25
26
The determination of the existence of a material fact is often a close question. The
Court must consider the substantive evidentiary burden that the nonmoving party must
meet at trial -, e.g., a preponderance of the evidence in most civil cases. Anderson, 477
U.S. at 254; T.W. Elec. Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630. The Court must resolve any factual
issues of controversy in favor of the nonmoving party only when the facts specifically
27
attested by that party contradict facts specifically attested by the moving party. The
28
ORDER - 2
1
nonmoving party may not merely state that it will discredit the moving party’s evidence at
2
trial, in the hopes that evidence can be developed at trial to support the claim. T.W. Elec.
3
Serv., Inc., 809 F.2d at 630 (relying on Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255). Conclusory,
4
nonspecific statements in affidavits are not sufficient, and missing facts will not be
5
presumed. Lujan v. Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n, 497 U.S. 871, 888-89 (1990).
6
7
8
B.
Defamation
The parties agree that defamation claims filed in Washington are generally subject
to a two-year statute of limitations period. See RCW 4.16.100(1) (two years applies to
9
defamation claims). The parties also agree that the allegations of defamation existing in
10
11
12
13
paragraphs preceding 41 in Plaintiffs complaint pertain to matters published prior to May
10, 2009. Compare Dkts. 18 & 23 with 19. In other words, absent some exception,
Plaintiffs’ claims for defamatory statements made prior to May 10, 2009 are time barred
14
because Plaintiffs did not file their complaint alleging defamation for such statements
15
until more than two years later on May 10, 2011. Dkt. 1.
16
In opposition to Defendants’ statute of limitations argument, Plaintiffs argue that
17
the doctrine of continuing torts applies in their case. Dkt. 19 at 4 (collecting cases). It is
18
true that
19
20
21
22
23
24
Washington recognizes the theory of continuing torts. See Island
Lime Co. v. Seattle, 122 Wn. 632 (1922) (nuisance); Doran v. City of
Seattle, 24 Wn. 182, 183 (1901) (negligence); Fradkin v. Northshore Util.
Dist., 96 Wn. App. 118 (1999) (trespass). When a tort is continuing, the
“statute of limitations runs from the date each successive cause of action
accrues as manifested by actual and substantial damages.” Fradkin, 96 Wn.
App. at 125. A tort is continuing if the intrusive condition is reasonably
abatable and not permanent. Id. The tort continues until the intrusive
substance is removed. Bradley v. Am. Smelting & Refining Co., 104 Wn. 2d
677, 693 (1985).
25
Pac. Sound Res. v. B.N.S.F. Ry., 130 Wn. App. 926, 941 (2005) (emphasis added). In
26
urging the Court to apply the doctrine of continuing torts, Plaintiffs argue that their
27
28
ORDER - 3
1
defamation claim stems from certain of Defendants’ statements made in or around June
2
2008 until the present. Dkt. 19 at 5.
3
However, Plaintiffs cite to no case, and this Court has found no case wherein a
4
Washington court or a federal court applying Washington law has applied the doctrine of
5
continuing torts to defamation claims. As discussed above, the cases are typically ones of
6
7
8
nuisance and trespass. But see LaMon v. Butler, 112 Wn.2d 193, 196-197 (holding that
the two-year statute of limitations period barred five articles published two years prior to
the LaMons complaint). Notably, the LaMon court did not apply the doctrine of
9
continuing torts to include five articles previously published notwithstanding the fact that
10
11
12
13
14
a sixth article containing identical misstatements was published within the statute of
limitations period and, therefore, not barred. The holding in LaMon cuts directly against
Plaintiffs’ position.
Moreover, in tracing back the applicability of the continuing tort doctrine, the
15
Fradkin case is instructive. See 96 Wn. App. at 124. In Fradkin, the court explained that
16
the continuing tort doctrine applies to instances in which the “the intrusive condition is
17
reasonably abatable and not permanent.” Id. at 125 (citing the 1901 case of Doran, 24
18
Wn. 182). Put otherwise, the continuing damage can be stopped and the damages already
19
inflicted are able to be undone.
20
Here, it may be that Defendants have published defamatory statements within the
21
two-year limitations period beginning on May 10, 2009 (two years from the date of the
22
complaint). However, in Plaintiffs’ case, any statements published prior to that time are
23
not abatable, permanent, or both, which is unlike a particulate matter case (nuisance) that
24
25
26
can be stopped (abated) and the damage reversed (not permanent). In short, Plaintiffs
have not provided adequate authority for the proposition that they may seek redress for
allegedly defamatory statements made by Defendants that precede May 10, 2009 (i.e., the
27
allegations complained of in their Complaint preceding paragraph 41). Nor have Plaintiffs
28
ORDER - 4
1
sufficiently articulated with any persuasiveness how Defendants’ alleged prior
2
defamatory statements could actually be abated or are not permanent. Logically, while
3
future statements could be discontinued and are not yet permanent, the same cannot be
4
said for past statements that have already been published.
5
6
7
8
Therefore, the Court grants Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment as
to the defamation claims arising from Plaintiffs allegations of defamation that precede
paragraph 41 in their Complaint. See Dkt. 1.1
C.
Section 303
9
Defendants move to dismiss on summary judgment Plaintiffs’ § 303 claims based
10
11
12
13
on a two-year statute of limitations period. Dkt. 23 at 6 (citing RCW 4.16.130,
Washington’s “catch-all” limitations statute). In opposition, Plaintiffs argue that their §
303 claims are subject to a three-year statute of limitations period under RCW
14
4.16.080(2). Dkt. 19 at 5. While the parties agree that Washington law provides the
15
applicable statutory limitations period, they dispute which time period applies to
16
Plaintiffs’ instant § 303 claims. See International Union of Operating Engineers, etc. v.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1
To the extent Plaintiffs could make a different argument for the allegations in paragraphs
21-24 of their Complaint (currently not identified with a date of publication), they have failed to
provide competent evidence that these allegedly defamatory statements were made after May 10,
2009. See Complaint at ¶¶ 21-24 (not providing dates of publication). Additionally, Defendants
correctly point out that Plaintiffs may not rely on a declaration made without personal
knowledge to support evidence produced. Here, Plaintiffs supply the declaration of their counsel
to support their position that the defamatory statements have continued. See Dkt. 19 (relying on
the Declaration of Sok-Khieng Lim). Although Plaintiffs’ counsel did supply documents that are
purported to be defamatory publications occurring after March of 2009, the Court cannot tell
from the documents whether or not they were in fact published after such date. Further still, the
documents would need to have been published after May of 2009, the two year cutoff date based
on the applicable statute of limitations discussed above. Plaintiffs, in any event, failed submit
competent evidence supported by the declaration of someone with personal knowledge to this
effect; Plaintiffs’ counsel’s declaration, on its own, fails to meet this requirement. Therefore, the
Court’s order on summary judgment herein as to defamation applies to the allegations in ¶¶ 2124 of Plaintiffs’ complaint.
ORDER - 5
1
Fischbach & Moore, Inc., 350 F.2d 936, 939 (9th Cir. 1965) (holding that a state’s most
2
analogous statute of limitations period applies to § 303 claims).
3
Defendants first argue that RCW 4.16.080(2) cannot apply to § 303 claims because
4
that limitations statute is applied only to issues involving personal rights rather than the
5
rights of an entity. Dkt. 23 at 7. However, while Defendants supply authority wherein a
6
7
8
court applied RCW 4.16.080(2) to such personal rights cases (e.g., car accidents), they do
not supply authority for the proposition that the statute does not apply to entity rights. As
such, the argument is unpersuasive.
9
Defendants next oppose Plaintiffs’ claim that § 303 claims are subject to the three10
11
12
13
year limitations period in RCW 4.16.080(2) because courts have applied that period to §
301 cases and other courts have held that § 301 and § 303 claims are subject to the same
limitations period. Compare Dkt. 19 at 6 with Dkt. 23 at 7. For its position, Plaintiffs rely
14
on § 303(b), which provides that suits under § 303 are “subject to the limitations period of
15
§ 301.” See Dkt. 19 at 6 (quoting 29 U.S.C. § 187(b)).
16
In opposition, Defendants argue that such argument “has been expressly rejected
17
by courts out of recognition that the two sections were enacted for different reasons.” Dkt.
18
23 at 8 (citing BE & K Constr. Co. v. Will & Grundy Counties Bldg. Trades Council, 156
19
F.3d 756, 762 (7th Cir. 1998)). Defendants’ interpretation of BE & K Constr. Co. is not
20
entirely on point because, while that opinion is instructive to this case, it did not expressly
21
reject Plaintiffs’ position that § 303 claims and § 301 claims are treated the same for
22
purposes determining which limitations period applies to such claims in Washington. BE
23
& K Const. Co. involved the question of whether a six-month limitation period applied to
24
25
26
§ 301 claims. In rejecting the six-month limitations period for straightforward § 301
claims, the Seventh Circuit held that an exception to the limitations language in § 301
(referencing § 303) exists whereby § 301 claims are subject to a six-month rather than
27
three-year limitations period when a court is presented with a hybrid case involving a §
28
ORDER - 6
1
301 claim mixed with a duty of fair representation action. See BE & K Constr. Co., 156
2
F.3d at 762-63 (rejecting the hybrid limitations period of six months as the period
3
applicable to straightforward § 301 claim or a § 303 unfair labor practices claim cases).
4
Thus, in contrast to Defendants’ position, the Seventh Circuit expressed that the
5
rule on hybrid cases (six-month limitations period) “should not be taken as a departure
6
7
8
from prior practice in borrowing limitations periods for federal causes of action, in labor
law or elsewhere.” Id. (citation omitted). Further, in BE & K Constr. Co., the Seventh
Circuit did not reject the statutory language in § 301 that expressly provides that the same
9
limitations apply to § 301 claims applies equally to § 303 cases. Id.
10
11
12
13
To support its position that a three-year limitations period applies, Plaintiffs rely
on Washington v. Northland Marine Co., Inc., 681 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1982). In
Northland, the Ninth Circuit held that Washington’s three-year statute of limitation period
14
rather than the two-year “catch-all” statute applied to § 301 claims. Id. at 586-87.
15
Defendants contend that Northland does not apply because it was a hybrid case, which
16
requires a six-month limitations period. Dkt. 23 at 8 (relying on BE & K Constr. Co., 156
17
F.3d at 762). Although Defendants are correct about Northland being a hybrid case, their
18
arguments on this issue miss a critical distinction in the cases coming after Northland. See
19
Scoggins v. Boeing Co., Inc., 742 F.2d 1225, 1227-1228 (9th Cir. 1984).
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
In Scoggins, the Ninth Circuit reviewed the cases following Northland and their
impact going forward:
Prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United Parcel Service,
Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56 (1981), the statute of limitations for hybrid
Section 301 actions in Washington was three years. Christianson v.
Pioneer Sand & Gravel Co., 681 F.2d 577 (9th Cir. 1982) (three year
statute of limitations for suits against employers); Washington v. Northland
Marine Co., 681 F.2d 582 (9th Cir. 1982) (three year statute of limitations
for suits against unions). In Mitchell, the Supreme Court held that a state
limitation period for vacation of an arbitral award controlled the employee’s
Section 301 action against his employer Mitchell, 451 U.S. at 64. In
Washington, this period is three months. See Wash. Rev. Code § 7.04.180
(1974). The Mitchell opinion, however, invited a square presentation of the
28
ORDER - 7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
question whether a more appropriate period would be the six-month
limitation period found in Section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations
Act. 451 U.S. at 60 n. 2. In DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of
Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983), the Court decided this question. The Court
held that the limitation period as to claims against both an employer and a
union is six months. We must decide whether either of these decisions
applies to Scoggins’ action, filed eight months after Mitchell and sixteen
months before DelCostello.
We have held that DelCostello does not apply . . . to claims against
employers under the Labor Management Relations Act. See Barina v. Gulf
Trading and Transportation Co., 726 F.2d at 563-64. The six-month
limitations period announced in DelCostello cannot, therefore, govern
Scoggins’ action.
Id. (Emphasis added). The Ninth Circuit, contrary to Defendants’ position, went on
9
to hold that Scoggins action against the union was subject to Washington’s three10
11
12
13
year statute of limitations period. Id. at 1229 (affirming that portion of Northland,
681 F.2d at 586).
Based on the foregoing, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have supplied
14
adequate authority to support their position that the three-year statute of limitations
15
period in RCW 4.16.080, rather than the “catch all” two year period in RCW
16
4.16.130, applies to their indisputably, non-hybrid case against Defendants.
17
Because the three-year limitations period applies to § 303 claims and because it is
18
undisputed that Plaintiffs’ filed their § 303 complaint within the three-year
19
limitation period, their § 303 claims are not time barred.
20
21
Therefore, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on this issue is
denied.
22
23
24
25
26
27
III. ORDER
28
ORDER - 8
1
Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that
2
(1)
claim is GRANTED as discussed herein, and
3
4
(2)
5
6
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ defamation
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ § 303
claim is DENIED as discussed herein.
DATED this 26th day of July, 2011.
A
7
8
9
BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
ORDER - 9
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?