Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767-14/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 29:185 Labor/Mgt. Relations (Contracts)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

SAN JOSE DIVISION

Granite Rock Company,

Plaintiff,

 v.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Freight, Construction, General Drivers,

Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 287, et

al.,

Defendants. /

NO. C 04-02767 JW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS WITH LEAVE TO AMEND

Plaintiff Granite Rock alleges that Defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 287 ("Local") and

International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT") violated a collective bargaining agreement. Local

and IBT are each commonly known as and doing business as a "labor organization" within the

meaning of 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local represents certain Granite Rock employees, and is the collective

bargaining representative for employees engaged as drivers at Granite Rock's San Jose, California

facility. 

Presently before the Court is IBT's Motion to Dismiss. Local does not oppose IBT's motion. 

(Docket Item No. 157). The Court held a hearing on IBT's Motion on May 22, 2006. Based on the

statements of counsel at the hearing and on the papers submitted, IBT's Motion to Dismiss is

GRANTED with leave to amend.

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 162 Filed 05/23/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 2

Under Rule 12(b)(6), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which

relief can be granted. FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6). A claim may be dismissed as a matter of law for one

of two reasons: “(1) lack of a cognizable legal theory or (2) insufficient facts under a cognizable

legal theory.” Robertson v. Dean Witter Reynolds, Co., 749 F.2d 530, 534 (9th Cir. 1984). “A

complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957). The court “must presume all factual allegations of the

complaint to be true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party.” Usher v.

City of Los Angeles, 828 F.2d 556, 561 (9th Cir. 1987). In determining the propriety of a Rule

12(b)(6) dismissal, a court may not look beyond the complaint. Schneider v. California Dept. of

Corrections, 151 F.3d 1194, 1197 (9th Cir. 1998) (“The focus of any Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal...is the

complaint.”)

In the SAC, Granite Rock alleges that there was a ratified collective bargaining agreement

between Local and Granite Rock and that Local violated the agreement by engaging in an unlawful

strike. Granite Rock further alleges that IBT is also liable for damages caused by the strike because

IBT and Local were "in an agency relationship." SAC ¶ 18. IBT contends that it cannot be held

liable for breach of the Agreement because Granite Rock has not alleged that it was a party to the

Agreement. 

At oral argument, counsel for Granite Rock explained that IBT should be viewed as a party

to the Agreement because IBT and Local were in an agency relationship where IBT was an

undisclosed principal that authorized Local to enter into the Agreement on IBT's behalf, and that

IBT authorized Local to ratify the Agreement on IBT's behalf. To the extent that Granite Rock

intended to allege these facts in the SAC, the SAC's single statement that IBT and Local "were in an

agency relationship at all times hereto in which the IBT exerted actual control over Local 287" is

insufficient even under the liberal requirements of Fed. R. Civ. Pro. 8. The Court dismisses the IBT

from the SAC but grants Granite Rock leave to amend the allegations in the SAC to support its

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 162 Filed 05/23/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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 3

theory of the case as stated at the hearing. The Court declines to address, at this time, the question

of whether a claim for tortious interference alone would state a claim under 29 U.S.C. 185. 

Dated: May 23, 2006

04cv2767ibt_mtd

 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 162 Filed 05/23/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT COPIES OF THIS ORDER HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO:

Adam James Peters apeters@littler.com

Alan Sam Levins alevins@littler.com

Duane B. Beeson dbeeson@beesontayer.com

Kimberly Lynn Owens kowens@littler.com

Lisa W. Pau lpau@beesontayer.com

Peter D. Nussbaum pnussbaum@altshulerberzon.com

Rebekah B. Evenson revenson@altshulerberzon.com

Leah Ford

25 Louisiana Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20001

Dated: May 23, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By:_/s/ JW Chambers__________

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 162 Filed 05/23/06 Page 4 of 4