Muns Welding and Mechanical, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 150 Pension Fund et al, No. 1:2015cv00017 - Document 46 (S.D. Ga. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER granting Defendant Charles I. Hardigree's 17 Motion to Dismiss; granting Defendant Plumbers and Steamfitters Local No. 150 Pension Fund's 18 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction; dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Claims One through Thirteen, as outlined in the body of this Order; and directing the Clerk to close this case and terminate all pending motions. Signed by Judge J. Randal Hall on 04/02/2015. (jah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Muns Welding and Mechanical, Inc. v. Board of Trustees of the Plumbers... No. 150 Pension Fund et al Doc. 46 THE T]NITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE OF GEORGIA SOIITHERN DISTRICT AUGUSTA DIVISION IN MUNS WELDING & MECHANTCAL, INC. Pl-aintif f , * v. c v 1 1 5- 0 1 7 BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS & STEAMFITTERS LOCAL NO. 150 PENSION FUND, et al .. * Defendants ORDER This l i el d i n g case and Plan \ : anci Steamfitters i ni contributions to the of Plaintiff asserts Fund, na Fund six its right Hardigree No. of Pluhbers the (coLlectivel-y claims ihe Muns Loca] TrusLees Pension raa=vAi Pension hel-wean Steamfitters Board 150 Muns Welding ?a l i aF di snrrfe and the No. a ("Muns Welding" ) ,. Charles Pl-umbers Local rrnar- i rro of Inc. and Fund and _. H e n s r _ o nE u n d " ) . :nd out ano Mechanical, i " ua rrl i oror." Pension ari-ses for srrsnensi to 150 "the declaratory on litigate Of in its this ' As to the Pension Fund, Muns Welding named (L) the Board of Trustees of the Plunbers and Steamfitters Local No. 150 Pension Fund and (2) Plurnlcers and Steamfitters l,ocal No. 150 Pension Plan and Fund as DefendantsThese Defeniants aver that the proper party is the "Plumbers and Steamfitters Locaf No. 150 Pension Fund,': Muns Welding responds that ERISA allows a pension plan to be sued. Moreover, that controls a party the administration of a pensian plan is a proper party. See carren v, John Hancock Mut, Life InsC o . , - L - 1 4F . 3 d 1 8 6 , 1 8 ? ( l I t h Cir. 1997) tp.. @ the present mations to dismiss, Defendants hawe agreed that the same reasons for dismissal apply to aLt of the Pension Fund DefendantsBecause the Court ultimateLy finds that the Pension Fund's Motio'r Lo D,snLss shorLd oe grdn.eo, it need not address the meriLs of the Pension Fund/ s arqument reqardinq proper parties . Dockets.Justia.com its Court, right. exclusion effective ( cne unfon et cnf nr.'e nrmri si nnq seq., nf 1980 ("MPPAA") , states Hardigree for slander rlcr Hardigree's dismiss by interference, and Lort Now before (doc. Fund Amendment Plan Additionafly, against claims court 18) to seeking iniunctive the U.S.C. 29 interference, tortious seeks also Pension the l-aw seq. Employee the specifically Pension its Local- 150 (*ERISA"), S 1381- et state from stem I91 4 Welding U.S.C. three malicious se- al-1 of and and Steamfitters M r r ' lf i e m n l r ) ! / e r 29 conduct.2 filed Act t -h e liabifity, withdrawal cfaims Muns with wel-ding Muns six of Plumbers Security Income S 1001 of the from These l Retirement Act abatement to and rel ief are from motions to (doc. and Hardigree t7) . I. Muns employs hart[,E! i sr L L l r l n Alh f manager, ' Welding members of t- i mad an elected BACKGROT]IID is a the Union. IJ: |o mechanicaf rI nv l Y rn s r a o l i s position. contracting (Compl-., D o c ca rrro,4 (Id. the t l 6. ) I, company tl 3.) Union's t.hat Ar altbusiness Muns Welding has One of the Pension Fund's bases for its motion Lo dismiss is that Muns jnter Welding's complaint is a shotgun pleadinq. The Pension Fund argues, alia, to specify l^rhich cfaims are brought agarnst which that "Plaintiff fails (Doc, 18 at B.) defendant." The Courb notes that the Pension Fund \a'as able to file its motion to dismiss as to the ERISA/MpPAA claims without difficufty and correctly left law claims Defendant the state tort for Hardigree to address. Thus, the Pension Fund's interpretation of the motion to dismiss was consistent with Muns l,leldinq's response, !,rhich lists claims ones through (Doc- 38 at 3six as the substantive claims applicable to Lhe Pension Fund. 4.) As Muns Welding states in iLs reply to Hardigree, it seeks to invoke the j C o u r L ' s s ^ p p . L e m e n r : a Lu r ' s o i c L i o n tor the Lort claims against Hardigree. Lee Muns president ("Muns"), (*AMCA-) and, the of Mrns' Early A. F r rr+ ') l1I r r s ! frrT1rlad Hardigree the and increase to these f r^r)m 1998 ve.rbal Ly warneo him m : n . , r . r e m e nI t-he trusLees of (rd. nrrri ncr bargaining in neoof i ations the Lo Lhe rn f l l J e - 1 1 .) drive some and Hardigree that campaign quescioning it of out tT 12. ) agreement usurped other open an (rd. ! und. " trustees and other and Fund Pension Muns objected fl 8.) Hardigree afleges wel-ding "engaged (Id. ircerlering "stop to Pension Muns business. "3 that amend the to afmost was re-el-ecEion, ensure to but liabitity. and alleges Fund Pension trustees other unfunded actions retal-iation, 2000, to the convinced the Welding, Muns to According Bardigree with Difficulties (Id') the Union- with agreements any bargaining renewals negotiating for was responsible capaciLy, that in as Assocaatlon contractors Mechanical Augusta the of u ?') served Muns Welding' of Pres.ident the (Id. 1989. Fund since Pension Union's the to contributed in (*cBA")' role of the contractors 2OO9 renew to the coffective Hardj-gree invited negotiators, negotiation the selected to t for his distaste openly expressed Hardigree alleges that Muns welding going of of aut is on the verge that Muns welding Muns, misrepresented liabiLity. to pay wichdrawal Muns welding to force business, and is trying following Muns' efforts (campl. !l 12.) that Moreover, Muns welding alleges a member of the Board the right tso elect employers for contractor to obtain Agreement Lo the Trust an amelldment Hardigree engineered Trustees, of lo make a employer that has falLed from service any corltractor disquafifying d^ht-rih,,t-i^. h'/ j-hF l^sr .l:-' ^f to Muns wetding, according This, e m D l o v e r s t h e t ' L e e M u n s A m e n d m e n t ." fha m.)nth has (Id.) fhat been lt was Eermed by due. other (Id. tl 13.) contractor and then terminated meeLings, the negotiations Lee Muns that the and informed Union refused to in good faith but rather bargain insisted that the AMCA contractors accept the same contract that all the other contractors al-legedly had accepted. (Id. for tl 14.) As a result, unfair ('NLRB"), Board parties B. practices labor were which with thereafter able to and the the AMCA f il-ed National- Labor jurisdl.ction. decfined negotj-ate charges Rel-ations (to. ) a new Both (r d . ) cBA. The 20L3 CBA NeqotiaEions The CBA negotiated (Doc. 3, Ex. Hardigree Lhat 10. ) refused previously 2009, r6 trying the } to the convince in 2OO9, in tT 15. ) noE. file Muns on September 30, Muns good sent Hardigree Welding faith, same contract over anot.her a unfair series of Uo negotiate that insisting with aLt because the the same labor letters and a new CBA, which October 7, 2Qt3,: Muns sent Hardigree offering responses to items presented July 25, 2013 meeting and a September a fetter during a l_5, 20L3 t'fA October 24, 2QI3,: after an October g_3.) Muns sent Hardigree a l-etter 15, 2013 meeting summarizing A in e-mails Hardigree like to .i hd NLRB (Id. charge. June 5, 20L3: Muns sent a ]et.ter t'o forth setting the terms he would ( D o c. 3 , E x . 9 - 2 . ) negotiate. maat- other viofat'ion summarized as follows: . 2013. alleges instead pface in Purportedfv jurisdiction declined AMCA did 2009 expired bargain (compl. Instead, to in As t.he AMCA accept contractors. { Union the are resolved and what issues were what remained outsstanding, (Id., Ex. 9-4.) . issues Muns stating November 5, 2Qa3: Hardi-gree e-mailed in good faith and, that the Union had negotiat.ed the part.ies based on the october 24, 20f3 letter, This e-maiL additionallv were at an ampasse. November 7 , 20L3, a meeting seL for cancelled l-earned that Muns purportedl-y because Hardj-gree lr ^Lr ar lv . - . L inr ^ lr Y r \'€rl-rri c:r a.i rnrl i n<f :l l,-r] -a nr6icr.f f .rr project was done nonAmeresco at SRS and this went on to say EhaL the The e-mail union[.]" Muns Welding was not that Union befieved in good faith and that it would offer negotiating place with alf other AMCA the CBA in the (fd., Ex. 9-5.) contractors. to Hardigree in an November 7, 201-3: Muns replied that the AMCA was attending the e-mail- stating original ly- scheduled meet.ing. (Id., Ex. 9-6.) an e-mail November 8, 2OI3: Muns sent. Hardigree the AMCA attended the meeting stating that to that AMCA remained interested in negotiate, the nannr-ir1.inn (Id., Ex. :nd TA.nra<t-ad ma6t- in.r .lrr-a 9-5.) Novemlf,er l-3, 201-3: Muns sent another e-mail to (Id., for a new meetj-ng date. Hardigree asking Ex. 9-7. ) 2013 t Muns senL a third November 18, requesting a meeting date. (Id., Ex. 9-7.) e-mail- responded to Muns' November l-8, 2O]-3t Hardigree muLtiple e-maiIs saying "we a-re offering AMCAthe CBA we have in place with af l- other contractors. We do not feel we need any other meetings to (Id., Ex. 9-7.) further." negotiate any . November L9, 201-3: Muns sent Hardigree a l-etter with the AMCA's "best and last offer." In that. l-etter, Muns emphasized lhe AMCA's desire for a contract with the Union. In this letter, Muns reminded Hardiqree also that the AMCA had met to year a over be e-maifed current local restating Hardigree CBA, difficulties was willing to A 9.) 2oI5 5, and hand-wrote c. from letter to ceased Fund which in 10. ) Ex. permanently Pension t.he Muns Welding 52,4f6,913.00 (Id. , for it and Pension to have continued previousfy sent to a 2oI4 manpower, on the on but envelope the an to engage contributed in to to the the Demand demanding payment of the Fund. Pension Muns Welding contributse Eo the fetter, obligation and Notice from liability According mail 9- Ex. 9-10.) on December I, withdrawal- Ex. Fund Fund Pension address (Id., requesting certified requested name and his the via sent again "Refused A/'7/L5." Withdrawal Counsel Muns which through struck Hardigree was 9-9.) (Id., Muns Welding. manpower for in Ex' on December 1-5, 20L4' correspond.ence third January - provide Hardigree that Muns welding (Id., them. impasse behind the a second e-mail sent Muns then for put the business the that and stating faced,' Muns Welding of copy of Hardigree informing a Muns when 201-4' for request his appears Hardigree 1-0' Decemlcer on l-ater, approxrmaEefy Muns and between communj-cation next The over times 9-8 . ) eight the Union (fd, , Ex. months. with four same Eype of Pension Fund, work which of the impasse and Hardiqree's Platntarr as a resuft daacacJ LrldL from any request it has not received a single Muns Wefding, vendetta against all savannah site, who are at the Ri-ver federal conEracE.ors of hhe (Cornpl - fl 22.) a P r o j e c t L a b o r Agreement with the Union. to signatories triggered withdrawal- (Id. ) Pursuant liability to withdrawal 60 days ERISA liability later than Letter stated (fd. ) Moreover, We]ding cou]d (2) (Id., liability. On Court the 11, conference, on held the letter. due to Thus, within review the of 30, the 2QL5. 90 days Muns t.he withdrawal demand fet.ter, of of commence no ,January on that the review 2OI5, Muns abatement the court counsel wit.hdrawal for liability of expressed Penslon Fund and Hardigree moLions to for schedule the its withdrawal- the motions to Motion of 2Ol_5. ruling when issues entered dismiss During over Injunction Court for t.hat Motion, reservation jurisdictional raised a on March 13. Preliminary Accordingly, for f il-ed As a result conference Motion dismiss. Welding (Doc. 30.) a telephone Muns l,gef ding's briefing the trustees application Injunction. the was of was response to an Fund payment. Ex. 9. ) March Preliminary that requested submit.Led date 4203 (b) . Section 4219(c) (2) , instructed l-etter In (1) Muns Wel-ding the $59,49I .40 request ERISA Section Pension the after the (Id.) liability. and to that under in the their an expedited and the preliminary inj unction. TT Tr n r r .'.\rtrl- n v 1 r c> f enn, i 1-aet-a r rl c rr i \ a t-ha r r rn a g Ia^'l MOTTON TO DISMISS d. motion to sufficiency STANDARD dismiss of under the Rule compLaint, 12 (b) (6) , the not whether fha nleinl- if f r r ' lf i m ^ i F l v \ ^i l I (A974). Rhodes, 416 U.5.232,236 lct(. cLl-L .r- 1^-^r d.-L-Ls!sLr L- in inferences the only its 662, 678.79 also complaint 550 U.S. 544, "factual content that the 'probability nossil'r'-'lv lha- a though is dispute entangfed actuaffy quite that by failing have an obligation between in court is has to to acLed v. Twombly, plead reasonabLe the misconduct not akin is more 1l to the for Lt-l4wz plausible required draw for matter, is Corp. is asks rz.'/ a than to a sheer Td- . DISCUSSION Muns Welding a contribute and the Pension compl-ex statutory straightforlvard. execute Atf. liabl-e an extraordinarily to v. Ashcroft that standard it but delendanL legal factual re.Iief Beff plausibility III The the defendant requirement,' 2 O O 2 '. ) Cir. facts. The plaintiff affows "The See conplaint's sufficient sLaLe a c.Iaim ro that Id. alleged. " wel-f -pl-ed as true plaintiff. (11th the v. reasonabl_e all- the f225 accept "contain (2007)). 570 must accept to !222, Scheuer merits. construe errq aE 678 (citing Id, face."' the (2009). must 'to accepLed as rruef inference rru nor true, on favorabl-e need s56 U.s. on its most l-ight as conclusions A - ^ - - 1 ^ . q.f r ulr'ryf however, court, Iqbal, !L^ i I The court Ramsey, 3L2 F.3d Hoffman-Pugh v. Tl^e nreva The Pension th.e Pension scheme, Fund determined new CBA, Muns Wefding to Fund, ceased Fund and to was subject thus 10.) perform to continued withdrawal to work Muns Welding, during labor asserts af l-eges should A. be dismissed the p1an, an be its to iL notify u.s.c. to the the ss notification, the s liability that to which a occur Dismiss, Hardigree Lhe National by by covered Motion Labor amount employer 13a2, the is involving to rrith the cont.r-Lbutions its employees. " omnl of the the liability, of nrrov, Fund, Pension fee set Within may request determj-nation, up assessment 1399(b) (1) . empfoyer liabl-e from pl-an in the MPPAA. an employer may escape liability "suspends the withdraws employer accordance upon Proc edura 1l-y , determine is 3, MPPAA employer in Even so, if the an that then a l-abor dispute contributions if determined S 1381(a) . withdrawal during it law cfaims, preempted as Ex. contributions of tort Under MPPAA, mul-tiemployer U.S.C. that Hardigree's state onfy Liabilitn Withdrawal amount to it (*NLRA').5 Act Under maintains As MPPAA because (Doc. the jurisdiclion. suspensions disputes. Muns Welding RelaL,ons for under that in however, exceplion statutory liability which that Muns under Id. 29 for plan tne S 1398(2). withdr:awaf < of sponsor must plan a payment and 90 the pl-an, schedule days of sponsor Welding and 29 this review did. j-f Muns Welding seeks to Hardigree also argues in his reply brief that jurisdiction invoke supplemental and this Court dismisses the ERISA/MPPAA claims against Pension Fund, the then this Court should exercise ats discretion to dismiss the pendinq state law claims as we1l. s 1399 (2) (A) t-, \ j-he decision this /li qnr\nq.,r dhrrt-6 }raF,.'^^h sections arbitration. the arbiL-raLlon in the fhpn 'I ai f 6 larri. administrative Fund v. cases holding excepl-Lons" Lo the the the from the claimants rule. efforts of against the Id. at courts appfy, 10 " lalny Of a made under be resol_ved completi on may bring entorce, is not l SOrv Se. an of action vacate, o-r a jurisdictionaf sl-a.re (5th are some of policy onLy Cir. the factors in quotations 1987) "practical remedies baLance the pensaon & Sw. Areas 328 to of JLqYL 320, however, (internaf - "Upon exhaustion substantial 329 shal-l- There F.2d same) the s yvr l vr Dn 1 1rrF< 1 . \ r wirh S 1401(b) (2). States requj remenL oI iF^ dissatisfied e nr el pa-rty -^hhu 826 the These exceptions clrcumstances. " omitted) Inc., nl }/f "to Id. Cent. ^f Tndeed, 401(a) (1) . 5 m aL L e r amhl^a'^y If title requiremenr l-\6? process. T.I.M.E.-DC, (listing result rsf this court award." any a determinat.ion eirher l discri cr The MPPAA's arbitration hrara^rri of Id. Lhe arbitrato-'s fha +-hF concerning proceedings[,I" appropriaLe .nA L399 of arbitratlon. arrar pfan " review n.\l- i f\r mandates 1381. throuqh through l amnl pension reasonable S 1399(b) (2) (B) . Id. Congress multiemployer a ehel and basis. review, modily "AI ter .rwhich riqhts of favoring extraordinary and citations The Pension B. The crux of submitted Eo an exception its dispute which 896 to (11th cases [. ]" "rare TeamsterE Pension undisputed argues that of v. Inc. Mobile l-345 830 F.2d under resolution of exception, Ass'n arbitration Flying {citing Muns recognized S.S. excuses first fafls This Appeals that arbitration it because is that MPPAA's the interpretation. Fund, Trust is requirement 1990), at Id. liabi]ity it Court Cir. dismrss wit.hdrawaf Muns Welding Council. to under Circuit Container l-330 faff statutory Eleventh F.2d and generaf this requires the Carriers ,^;ould motion over arbiE.rationr response, In Fund's disputes al-f T,ilaI,.1in.r's .lAimq mandate.6 !o Dismiss Pension the t.he MPPAA mandates be Motion Fund's al., et only Tiger 124L, in ].253 in Line v. (3d Cir. 3_987 ) . ) In court :-hif court Carriers, did not err :s r,a- inn determi-nation from t h e M P P A At h e court holding, court Appeal-s hefd -he. a court may rule it' on the forth t.he ' the district t.he case waS the beIOre a "when was never issue." fol-]owing party Id. seeks an emplover Id. at four to diStriCt u n d e r t h e M P P A A". he-Id that that that submit first an 'emplover' cou.rt set to /-rr-6cf inn ^n-1/ the of failinq CCC is There, the in Lo "f was whether 7344-45. Court the l-345. factors at a under In so as The Pension Fund additionaLly argues that this court. lacks jurisdiction to provjde the relief sought and that Muns Wetding's complaint is an improper shotgun pleading. However, because Lhe Court. finds that the case must first be remanded to arbitration, it does not address these other bases. 11 inf l-uential- in inl-errrrefafi on: initiate bv lhe (2\ the to 'tan arbitrator would not on of the issues withdrawaf Id. "empl oyer" in "was lrarrri courL under ]rr arbitration, sound, is At most of exception estabfished "ornl Court in :nd the - the liability There, the the 7 tfre (4') issue materiaf wiehdrawal oI of facts. as an liabi]iLy Muns Welding rel-ies decision bypass to reasonlng, court Indeed, noL j-hl.rs Ol]tside on and company qualified its " was to because though case. either liability or Carriers 'temployer. issue a IacLua-L record was addressing and was solely withdrawal were be the Carrr-ers the present circumstances of wou]d develop Although support leveI, Carriers. wit.hdrawal nr/ar" to to ru1ing,.7 Lhe issue finds basic definition this nf Court f actual- before escape to inapplicable the statutory case d time adverse the tha! Id. " of the agree Id] " on the determined this undisputed an parties decided. ihi any statutory economy interpretation Lhe sLaLuLe, effect before resolution appeal st.at.utorv was one of judicial have heLped to because both Qnce the issue flfed (3) run; court/ s was likefy the was suit had clislrict employer (1) decision: arbit.ration served the its interpreting the and at only fal1 MPPAA precise t.he issues t.he appl-icabifity issue or conclusively way for the company to outside the definition Thc :nnl ic':hi I itw of -mpiic't ir r:har o.1y r'e co-rL's hlndlinq of this facLor is .ne a rb i L raror ' s findings of fact are entitled to any deference under the sLatute, and any statutory interpretation or conclusions of 1aw woufd be reviewed without deference - L2 labor the dispute circumstances exception the of conflict the disL-r-Lcr court's employer and thus remaining the the Turning the to the other the l-ack of factuaf the parties first one of undisputed, would be a resources afforded appty. (3) qross given no dispute. stat.utory and waste the Whether a labor dispute fact. As detaifed above, dates back the concl-uded or was ongoing the 7990s must of fact-based sort in Carriers, r,rhere (1) (2) party the is existed dispute economy and the the ]egal that only issue facts are likely arbltrator's will the Mandating t-ha <:me concerns and the Carrrers, makes sense. arbitrator's IJa?6 to frames judicial with arbitration both remanded liability utilized This of it liability. non-prevailing deferen..a into any interpretation, the that in factors to liability, how Muns Welding concerned submit the company was an amount of engage attendant Notwithstanding whether withdrawal of seemed particularly court is to and the undisputed. the not issue issue withdrawal - issue did at deciding to contrary court as to were in subject Thus, district inquiry role factuaL arbitrator. was never t.o appeal and court's conclusions simply require are do not findings of between Muns and Hardigree wheEher be estabfished.s the Labor dispute An arbitrator/ s " Muns WeLding argues in its brief that the exact nature of Lhe factual dispute is unknown because Defendants have not yet filed an answer. This uncerLaj.nty equally weighs in favor of arbit.rat.ion. Surely it. was not Conqress's intent, with a clear arbitration mandate, part.ies to allow to bl4)ass arbitration and litigate through discovery and summary judgment to 13 findings issues these on it fndeed, deference. was make Trucking Emps. of N.J. 495, 506 (3d Cir. 1992) first provisions in F.2d 578. 582 district court the ranrr'1t r may af l-ow aLia, Carriers dj-strict case. quite Bd. federal in Trs. of 983 F.2d lr -vr, e 1 n r l: court. For one, obvious N.Y. 1988) , for the technical . agreed Flying court cited lhat arbitration l-.r ^errclnn Neither a of the motion that the parties to of Second Circuit's the Hotel- Trades Council, DroDosiLion bypass to that disagree a lhat arbltration 830 F,2d aE 1253, reCOrd dismiss 851 was unnecessary. it Tiger, fact.ors these submit court where was unnecessary f:r.j-rraf given first on two other the parties the in MPPAA has court, need not cited of arbitration applying relied the that Centra, mandating a court parties the proposition n.\t- v. parties the Corp. v. Cir. the second, by court. the (2d inEer where, for Carriers Park S. Hotel in See Inc. experts that First, r'l opinion is holding the arbitration, I nna review intent to how and when to assess withdrawa.I liability.") of Fina11y, to Fund, entit]ed be clear ("By generalfy who are arbitrators created shoufd fact. of Welfare with instance and Congress's fi-ndinqs the arbitrator t.he woufd is in on tO aSSiSt present this the in it the this action, it necessity of of any facLual disputes. Moreover, Muns Welding itself deLermine the nature factual, when v,/hether a labor dispute existed is inherently recognizes that before this court involves withdrawal liabiliLy ic says "f1e primary dispute Defendants allege rnere t}je triggets under the IMPPAA], and the events that (the occurrence liability of which PTaintiff for the assessment of withdrawal (Doc. 39 at 4-5 (emphasis added) .) disputes) l.l" t4 arbitration. arbitration This is could fact last such issue before development the factual record. relevant facts a all In finds a factual of that record. t.he arbitrator was no there Carriers, were was whether court that Court the The rol-e of be overstated. cannot as need, in assist establish to above, as discussed Moreover, and undisputed only the company qualj-fied the as an employer. are not the a olher Sheet Metaf Metal in court country & Wefding was faced court that the Court today and invoke the 1401. held Sheet 't [w]here a determination MPPAA, there arhi fra-i on statute Thus, turns is dispute be beicause the Supp. aE 22L. meaning of reason rcrnedv since would dispute an entitled court had to no 1-5 in i nternrel a inn to 1986), the to bypass court liability exhaustion Id. v. Section provision a certain as af. The district. deference. " rul-e to withdrawal- a In issue exception arbiuraror's to Ga. sought requiring for 85 et identical- employer concerning on the no an appellate (N.D. 2I9 the opposite. Union No. labor 654 F. Metal-, when and Lhe a seeminqlv with with one hand and on districL Supp. Carriers faced on the holding 654 F. Corp., Ehe district arbitration of in on is Court Pension Fund, Locaf Workers' before relied Atlanta number the across the case, significant from factors the present the one district of decisions Adv. in me! decisi-on that determined Having at definition of the of the of lhg 223-24. ot a part.icufar case to phrase in arbitration no case have done so. in l^,rief . of in interpretation would rlrl Circuit's employer involving with is that one M '^e of for in slatueory of more fimited tn or 'tlabor question which e is - rt vo holdinq, the excuse statutory every supposed cxnanrl l-he r.rtJurrv that interpretation l-aw and fact Circuit to in The such to be t-^ dr{a]Iow :f f ^q^f Carriers 11.) of arbitration - liLtle El-eventh courts its clisnrrle/' 38 at ttre the in leaving district some Court r _ Ln_ y f )\ / 4n / l "exlraordin.."" G?^l-l: h-. mixed questions Carriers' Consress, this recognizes (Doc. do. to exception and orr 6f Court Supreme Court. that legislation, To bypass the "rare" correct dcf inili6n where arise. holdinq cfear Court case affow 'Thrls F the and the or Muns Welding l-hF j-ntended might exct:seri onl rr in l-hr this any is fabor believe Appeals, arbitration instance for Circuit i nternrFl-^fi as federal rel-ated Eleventh ^dnhl-ad have to submitting that discute. " "Iabor se u Lfu]ul v ro r v t _r u fa However, here. strains court the -1me " inte rpretat i on" Court define Muns Welding Thus, r ' : o r r r l -s in used not which Err.9 c.9 e excl-usion found woufd be unnecessarv.e The MPPAA does finds MPPAA, it. the the - definition to incfude must. fail-. Slxth El evenLn Circuit of cases Consistent Court of In Sheet Metal, I ike Carriers, t h e r e d o e s n o t appear to be any disputed faccs. fndeed, that court focused its analysis o n the competing definitions of "labo-r dispute" and "suspension of contributions" and, after ruling on the f t-ta anr'l ^.--cr-66E definj-t.ions granted of Lhe phrases, summary judgment F ^ ' Metaf, 654 F. Supp. at 224-26. has Appea]s in requirement claim harm, (3) and , a n r - .t t 7a t t Ia r t rltlJ vl that Inc. v. Cent. F^?ai mixed very \at'l clear language Pension (D.C.C. After ed di snrrf necessary outweigh fnc. "r ha only f ar.f s identify in ire in 1401 meaningless. Corp., exception yield unusuaf a\.ncndi this would d ,a+r '^. 726 cases j-rrra handful might cases."); of few -f the 4I5, on 422 statutory countervailing are there irrdi apt r.i a l cases be gained Grand fendef See I.A.M. based nf whenever 825 F.2d to 1ike1y pretermitting v. Food Emps. See Transpersonnel, Cir- 2005) (holding lFmnl^vay, ,^hol hcr be rFqOUI.CeS would by Unj-on Co. A nun cer of courts have recognized this exception. v. Roadway Exp., Inc., 422 F.3d 456, 459 n.L (7th i h.a<h-l.l an Truck Fund, mandate nfesented an efficiencies these Fi ndl av Pension arbitration would 'fhF whatever arbitration '" all, to company is MPPAA. 't0 Engines out moreover, , no fe.'t CIinLon (" lCarving interpretationl the section of Fund v. 1987) benefits. wiLh I akt :nd of a irreparable to a & Sw. Areas submits 2013) . compl-iance cnresf i ons mounts a facial lead whether rh^ r'f Se. States, F.3d 738, 7s5 (5th Cir. Excusing nn arbitration employer would of the employer the arbitration rha w; f h i n where derermination "Lhe to exceptions where the (2) attack, verifiabfe three MPPAA: (1) the constitutional Line, just recognized r_,6 DrbrirLed Lo a coL(L p':o' Lo a(biLrdLLon"); Rheem Mfg. Co. v. Cent. States Se. & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 63 F.3d 703, 705-06 (8th Cir. 1995) (same); Mason & Dixon Tank Lj-res, Inc. v. Cent. States, Se- & Sw. Areas Pension Fund, 852 F.2d L56, L6-1 (etn \'-. av.oni i ha -rhit.ari.n radrirFmcnr" ih^r hirh:ee " " -y L' - ^ U|I'd L purpose arbitration for limited the of determining 'emp.Loyer' w-Lh-n -ne meaning oI secL-on l40l (a)(l)."). !7 whether it is arl Labor Relations, that a dimini sh statutory l-he j-on arbitrat Inc., Cfothing / \ \ i 4 1 L ir 6 r.r1 6 the Co. v. ir^^c^ Papale, r ' - , ' \ l r . r v a cc f ssues interpretation concerning fact/faw of exception 854 F. ^: -^,Led s1.1 wi.Il and is (quoLing arbitrat.ion."' scheme,,); F,A facrLaf a i rf nrnc^ Col-teryahn (internal- 1988) .t-h a dv^=r Sheet MPPAA." 774 (Bankr. See, e.9., the this falls the resofved Dairy, empl-oyer fiLs to that. that Line, decide"),whether F.3d the Cir. labor doubc fnc. favor v, W. I23 n.17 (3d 18 aL scope , reasonrnq reigns suprene 459 B.R. 757, (.'WheLher lthe i54 of S 1398(2) v. 954 F. is a Bomar Nat,1, exception constit.uted r\/ 1 wL 82s F.2d aE a22)). States dispute L C o t r n' ft the 2001_) (holding Crown Clothing, an impasse from L.L.C., I.A.M., qent, (7th the boLh in the "arbitration 126 within 1016 wit.hin aCI.OSS has deviated arbitrator."); 1011, r-.i. (quoting 2011) dispute t-r^yi BFW Liquidation, Truck 253 F.3d (hol-ding issue, re FindLay for court In h,. omitted) ) ) . 5r,f concfuded N.D. Ala. employer'sl quest.ion aF this Metal- and under the Inc., r.'ai dhr- precj-sely addressing of al-teration 1994) determining Penn. Teamsters & Emps. Pension Fund, 847 F-2d 113, Cir. Crown 'any means of shoul_d be tsO (D.N.J. inquiry, as CarL assicrne4l 320 n.3 likar,/ appropriate drastically "would nlainlw Supp. 316, (ho]dinq ]-987) resolution differentiation arbitrat.ion (D.C.C. 7O MPPAA dispute statutory whether 56, interpretation nrimc in F.2d 808 that "is whether not for Supp. at. 3Ag-20 a ]abor dispute is a disnJ,-A of 'a.-f -l-rf mnsl t'nnl- Lro l-o rhc cc o:.narri of an arbitrator"). rr-- quarterfy unlai-r and create stop with the contractors. The Court, n.r qeeks ro:rr pfaced rhar Indeed, (Doc. granting l-n the 38 schedule dispuLe faler' collecLion Cl-eaning Pension I92, Based Siv Trust a97 (L997) on arc the rrroamnl the get afl in other o m _ L L e d ). ) Motion to l-het. Dismiss. mfivo f i ! rn r in be binding precedent js name of Lhe qame. interim the must under Ferbar t'f elven rhat withdrawal- procedure." hrr with quotarions recognized Fund v. a,'l unron t'o drop who do not be ignore stil-L foregoing, would slrAin trustees' (internaf l-ha later" has it the truseees j-n place has n ar\ r rJq cannot it the in the financial t.he but however, for fL v. \ as * [t]he any union." (incerna-l l0 i I fu arbitration Pension Fund's minjmj2g challenges trustees' union a- the rin.r on contractors "pay now, dispute determination, f hror.th fiabiLity Lhe Sup-reme Court employer U.S. and wait. cont.racL re.flli !eyur!rrr:J in "a huge harnmer Ior on Muns Wefding, dicrates iL-rh4:Lj l participate bargaining " in ar.rrlae to wit.hdravraf hammer of l\/ !frreJry installments can simply line f in=l r! pay the Bay Area Corp. of to 'pay Laundry Cali., quotations finds the rr<;w, & Dry Inc., 522 Claims one omitted) . the the liability according statute's if lha Court MpPAA'c and shal-f be dismissed. 19 :rhil-rrr- that i^h 1 6 \ l , i fi I s^u z -s-r^ -L s r r L ! L + C. }lction Bardigree's Hardigree asserted against preempted by j-ha ^nn-avn in moves state 28 to him the dismiss on Without :?^e law. M 'Fc tort that governs claims cfams are preemption Lhe WF Ir.l inn,q over l-aw such -eSOUnd r-l:imc Muns Wefding jurisdiction S 1357 state addressing |L'5 Accordingly, suppl-emental U.S.C. the grounds the NLRA. a.rrrf tort to exercise to Dismiss urges t.his Court them. jurisdiction suppl-emental and provides: [f] n have have that any civil action of which the district courts jurisdiction, original the district courts shal-supplement.af jurisdiction over alf other claims are so refated to cfaims in the action within srrch nri cri na l qdi.-f irrri i.rn l- h:l- same case or controversy UniLed States Constitution, 28 U.S,C. S l_367(a). dismissed al] over h.rr. ^f t-L6 III of the Articfe courts District cfaims f^rm under may, however, suppfemenLal j -rr-Lsdiclion exercise f ha\r which where "rhe it has decl-ine to cou:r has districL jurisdiction.,, oriqinaf 28 U. S. C. S 1367 (c) (3) . As detail-ed rooted in federaf MPPAA mandating U.S.C, above, faw Raney v. over All_state ("We have in Court favor the the Ins. encouraged Congress, s of decl j-nes to exercise state law the provision and remaining district al-f Accordingly, Court co., dismisses of arbitration. S 1357(c) (3), jurisdiction the tort. cl_aims in pursuant to the 28 supplementaL claims. See 370 F.3d 1086. 1089 (11th cir. 2004) courts 20 to dismiss any remaining when, claims state dismissed prior frere, as Lo Lrial .") . federal the qarran CLaims have cl-aims l-h.l^.rrr.rhT'en been ^fe thUS DISMISSED WITHOUT PRE.TUDICE. IV. Based on the Fund's Motlon are to t.o the foregoing, Dismiss (doc. hereby Court (doc. Dismiss exercise 17) j-s simifarl-y supplemental in Cl-aims Seven through over Ten. are aforementioned afso Hardiqree's the Claims DISMISSED WITHOUT PRE,IUDICE by rulinqs. case and TERMINATE all The pending Motion is Cl-erk those Eleven virtue DIRECTED to motlons. decl-ines state As such, DISMISSED WITHOUT PRE,JUDICE. Final1y, Thirteen Six thus GRAIi|:IED,as t.he Court jurisdiction Pensl-on GRel[fS the Claims One through l8). DISMISSED WITHOUT PRE,JITDICE. Moreover, aflegations are to CONCL.USION Eort cl-aims through of the CLOSE this ll .r t rl/ ORDER ENTERED at Augusta, Georgia. *isr!/.Yday 20L5 . STATES DISTRI DISTRICT OF 2T of April,
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
