Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03990/USCOURTS-cand-3_09-cv-03990-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans w/ Disabilities Act (ADA)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court 

For the Northern District of California 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GEORGE L. KIRBYSON, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

TESORO REFINING AND MARKETING 

COMPANY; UNITED STEEL WORKERS, 

INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 5, and 

DOES 1 through 200, inclusive, 

Defendants. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No. 09-3990 SC 

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 

DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S

MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE 

PLEADINGS

I. INTRODUCTION

Now before the Court is a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

("Motion") filed by Defendant United Steel Workers, International 

Union Local 5 ("Defendant" or "the USW"). Docket Nos. 46. 

Plaintiff George Kirbyson ("Plaintiff") filed an Opposition, and 

Defendant submitted a Reply. Docket Nos. 47, 50. For the reasons 

stated below, Defendant's Motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN 

PART. 

II. BACKGROUND

 Plaintiff joined the U.S. Air Force in 1994, and transitioned 

into the Air Force Reserve in 1999. Docket No. 41 ("SAC") ¶ 9. 

Plaintiff worked as a refinery operator for Tesoro Refining and 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 1 of 7
2 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

Marketing Company ("Tesoro"). Id. ¶ 10. On January 5, 2005, 

Plaintiff was recalled to active duty, and Tesoro placed him on a 

military leave of absence. Id. ¶ 12. While serving in Iraq, 

Plaintiff was injured, and he became permanently disabled. Id. 

¶ 13. He was medically retired from the military in November 2008. 

Id. On December 22, 2008, Tesoro terminated Plaintiff's 

employment. Id. ¶ 18. 

 Plaintiff was a member of the USW. Id. ¶ 20. On December 22, 

2008, Plaintiff contacted Steve Rojek ("Rojek"), his union 

representative, in order to file a grievance regarding his 

termination. Id. ¶ 21. Defendant filed the grievance on December 

29, 2008, and Rojek told Plaintiff that "the grievance would 

probably not go very far due to Defendants Tesoro and USW Local 5's 

current union contract negotiations." Id. ¶¶ 21, 25. On January 

6, 2009, Plaintiff spoke with the USW Secretary and Treasurer Jeff 

Clark ("Clark") about his grievance. Id. ¶ 26. Clark informed 

Plaintiff "weeks later that his grievance had been denied and that 

nothing would likely 'be happening' regarding his grievance until 

after the current collective bargaining negotiations concluded." 

Id. Plaintiff alleges that the USW failed to pursue the matter any 

further. Id.

 On August 28, 2009, Plaintiff commenced this action. See

Docket No. 1 ("Compl."). On December 3, 2009, Plaintiff filed a 

First Amended Complaint. Docket No. 15 ("FAC"). On December 10, 

2009, USW filed an Answer to the FAC. Docket No. 17. On March 30, 

2010, Plaintiff filed a Second Amended Complaint. Docket No. 41 

("SAC"). On April 19, 2010, USW answered the SAC. Docket No. 44. 

On June 24, 2010, Tesoro answered the SAC. Docket No. 55. USW now 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 2 of 7
3 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

moves for judgment on the pleadings against Plaintiff. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

 "After the pleadings are closed - but early enough not to 

delay trial - a party may move for judgment on the pleadings." 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(c). The Court must accept all factual 

allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the 

light most favorable to the non-moving party. Fleming v. Pickard, 

581 F.3d 922, 925 (9th Cir. 2009). Judgment on the pleadings is 

properly granted when there is no issue of material fact in 

dispute, and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter 

of law. Heliotrope Gen., Inc. v. Ford Motor Co., 189 F.3d 971, 

979 (9th Cir. 1999). To survive a Rule 12(c) motion, the 

complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as 

true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. 

Johnson v. Rowley, 569 F.3d 40, 44 (2d Cir. 2009). 

IV. DISCUSSION

 Plaintiffs' second, fourth, and sixth causes of action are 

asserted against the USW. See SAC ¶¶ 35-39, 45-49, 54-57.1 The 

second cause of action alleges violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act ("ADA"); the fourth cause of action alleges a 

breach of the statutory duty of fair representation; and the sixth 

 

1

 The Court notes that the caption of the SAC names Clark and Rojek 

as individual Defendants, but none of the causes of action are 

asserted against Clark and Rojek. See SAC. The USW states that 

Plaintiff has withdrawn its claims against these individuals, see

Mot. at 2, and Plaintiff does not contend otherwise. See Opp'n. 

The Court therefore construes the SAC as asserting three claims 

against the USW, but not against the individuals Clark and Rojek, 

who are no longer parties to this action. 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 3 of 7
4 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

cause of action alleges violation of California's Military and 

Veterans Code. See id. 

The USW moves for judgment on the pleadings with respect to 

each of these claims. A party may move for judgment on the 

pleadings "[a]fter the pleadings are closed." Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(c). While the USW should have waited until after Tesoro filed 

its Answer to the SAC before moving for judgment on the pleadings, 

now that Tesoro has answered the SAC, the Court will address the 

USW's motion. 

A. ADA Claim

Plaintiff's second cause of action alleges that both Tesoro 

and the USW violated the ADA. The USW contends that Plaintiff's 

ADA claim against the union should be dismissed because the SAC 

contains no factual allegations that the USW was involved in the 

decision to terminate Kirbyson. Mot. at 15. The Court agrees. 

The SAC alleges that Kirbyson contacted Rojek, his union 

representative, "after being informed of his termination." SAC 

¶ 21. Kirbyson accuses the USW of a "lack of initiative regarding 

his union grievance." Id. ¶ 26. Having reviewed the allegations 

in the SAC, his allegations against the union have nothing to do 

with his employer's decision to terminate him, or with Tesoro's 

alleged failure to reasonably accommodate his disability. See id.

¶¶ 15-28. Since the SAC is devoid of the necessary factual 

allegations, the Court grants judgment on the pleadings in favor of 

the USW on Plaintiff's second cause of action against the USW. 

While normally the Court would give Plaintiff leave to amend, 

Kirbyson has already amended his complaint twice, and Kirbyson's 

Opposition brief contains no argument in defense of his claim that 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 4 of 7
5 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

the USW violated the ADA. See Opp'n. Having failed to defend this 

claim despite an opportunity to do so, the Court will not permit 

Plaintiff to amend the SAC to assert an ADA claim against the USW. 

B. Duty of Fair Representation

Kirbyson accuses the USW of breaching its duty of fair 

representation by "failing to pursue Plaintiff's grievance in 

violation of the collective bargaining agreement and processing 

Plaintiff's grievance in a perfunctory manner." SAC ¶ 47. 

Kirbyson alleges that the USW's actions were "arbitrary, 

discriminatory, and/or in bad faith." Id. ¶ 48. The USW moves to 

dismiss the claim on the basis that the SAC does not set forth 

sufficient factual allegations, and based on the six-month statute 

of limitations that applies to claims for breach of the duty of 

fair representation. Mot. at 10-12. 

The Court finds that the USW's motion is premature. Plaintiff 

was told his grievance would not go very far because of union 

contract negotiations with Tesoro. This factual allegation lends 

plausibility to his claim that the union breached its duty of fair 

representation. The USW also contends that this cause of action is 

time-barred, but it is not clear to the Court when Plaintiff's 

cause of action accrued. Plaintiff alleges that he was told his 

grievance had been denied sometime after January 6, 2009. SAC 

¶ 26. In its Motion, the USW suggests it was still pursuing 

Plaintiff's grievance after January 31, 2009. See Mot. at 11 ("The 

Decision of the Union to defer processing the grievance . . . 

[until] after January 31, 2009 was an act of judgment."). After 

the parties engage in discovery, the Court will be in a better 

position to determine if the USW's conduct constitutes a breach of 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 5 of 7
6 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

its duty, and if Plaintiff's claim is time-barred. The Court 

DENIES the USW's motion for judgment on the pleadings with respect 

to Plaintiff's fourth cause of action for breach of the duty of 

fair representation. 

C. California Military and Veterans Code 

Plaintiff's sixth cause of action alleges that both Tesoro and 

the USW discriminated against Kirbyson based on his military 

status. Compl. ¶¶ 54-57. The Complaint contains no factual 

allegations supporting his claim that the USW discriminated against 

him. As noted above, Plaintiff was told his grievance would not go 

very far because of on-going union contract negotiations. Id. ¶¶ 

21, 25. There are no allegations that his grievance was not 

pursued because Plaintiff was a member of the military. 

Plaintiff's Opposition brief does not respond to this contention. 

See Opp'n. Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the USW's motion for 

judgment on the pleadings with respect to Plaintiff's sixth cause 

of action. Plaintiff had an opportunity to respond, and failed to 

do so. Therefore, Plaintiff is not permitted to amend the sixth 

cause of action to allege a claim for military discrimination 

against the USW. 

 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and 

DENIES IN PART the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by 

Defendant United Steel Workers, Local 5. The Court GRANTS the 

motion with respect to Plaintiff's second and sixth causes of 

action against Defendant United Steel Workers, Local 5. The Court 

DENIES the motion with respect to Plaintiff's fourth cause of 

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 6 of 7
7 

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California 

action. All parties shall appear for a Case Management Conference 

on September 17, 2010, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 1, on the 17th 

floor, U.S. Courthouse, 450 Golden Gate Avenue, San Francisco, CA 

94102. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: July 12, 2010 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:09-cv-03990-SC Document 56 Filed 07/12/10 Page 7 of 7