Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00700/USCOURTS-cand-3_07-cv-00700-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 29:0401 Labor Management Disclosure Act

---

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

1

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Declaration in Support of

Defendants’ Opposition is hereby GRANTED. The Court’s decision herein, however, is not

based on consideration thereof.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TOM SPEAR,

Plaintiff

 v.

INTERNATIONAL UNION OF

BRICKLAYERS AND ALLIED

CRAFTWORKERS, et al.,

Defendants /

No. C-07-0700 MMC

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION;

VACATING HEARING

Before the Court is plaintiff Tom Spear’s (“Spear”) motion, filed April 6, 2007, for a

preliminary injunction, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. 

Defendants International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftworkers (“International”) and

Dave Sheppard (“the Receiver”) have filed opposition, to which Spear has replied.1

 Having

considered the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court deems

the matter appropriate for decision on the papers, VACATES the hearing scheduled for

May 25, 2007, and DENIES the motion, as follows:

1. On the issue of whether the hearing conducted February 12, 2007 was

procedurally fair, the Court finds Spear has not shown a likelihood of success. See E. & J.

Case 3:07-cv-00700-MMC Document 82 Filed 05/23/07 Page 1 of 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

2

Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F. 3d 984, 990 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding plaintiff

entitled to preliminary injunction where plaintiff demonstrates “either: (1) a likelihood of

success on the merits and the possibility of irreparable injury; or (2) that serious questions

going to the merits were raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in [his] favor”). 

Spear received actual notice of the hearing, and, to the extent the rights of third-parties are

relevant to Spear’s claim, defendants have offered evidence, undisputed by Spear, that

notice was provided to a significant number of members of Bricklayers and Allied

Craftworkers Union Local No. 3 (“BAC 3”) by means other than mail. Further, as

defendants have shown, the Hearing Officer provided attendees the opportunity to offer

evidence and to cross-examine individuals who offered evidence, and Spear availed

himself of both opportunities.

2. On the issue of whether the International’s March 27, 2007 decision is based on

evidence not presented at the February 12, 2007 hearing, the Court finds Spear has not

shown a likelihood of success. Even if the findings implicated by said argument are

stricken from the March 27, 2007 decision, the remaining findings would be sufficient to

support said decision, in particular, the findings that employees of SW Mertz Masonry

received campaign material from their employer, that the Apprentice Trust mailing list was

misused for campaign purposes, that mailing labels corresponding to the BAC 3

membership were improperly taken from BAC 3’s office to be used for election purposes,

and that the Election Committee was non-responsive to some election protests. See 29

U.S.C. § 462 (providing trusteeship over subordinate body may be established for purpose

of “restoring democratic procedure”).

3. On the issue of whether the International and/or the Receiver has acted in bad

faith, the Court finds, for the reasons stated by defendants, Spear has not shown a

likelihood of success.

4. As to the first and second issues set forth above, Spear’s showing suffices to

raise serious questions going to the merits. The Court finds, however, that the balance of

hardships does not tip in Spear’s favor, let alone sharply in his favor. See E. & J. Gallo

Case 3:07-cv-00700-MMC Document 82 Filed 05/23/07 Page 2 of 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

3

Winery, 446 F. 3d at 990. Although Spear has a significant interest in taking office as

President of BAC 3 in light of the December 2006 election results, the International’s

statutorily-recognized interest in having its subordinate bodies engage in proper democratic

procedures with respect to said election is at least of equal weight. Further, the

receivership will, by its own terms, expire on June 30, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2007 

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-00700-MMC Document 82 Filed 05/23/07 Page 3 of 3