Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767/USCOURTS-cand-5_04-cv-02767-10/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(s),

 v.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters,

Freight, Construction, General Drivers,

Warehousemen and Helpers, Local 287

(AFL-CIO),

Defendant(s). /

NO. C 04-02767 JW 

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO AMEND COMPLAINT

Plaintiff Granite Rock Company ("Plaintiff") brings this action against Defendant

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Freight, Construction, General Drivers, Warehousemen and

Helpers, Local No. 287 ("Defendant" or “Local 287") pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor

Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), for disputes arising out of alleged contract

violations. Plaintiff alleges that there was a ratified collective bargaining agreement between the

parties, and that Defendant violated the agreement by engaging in an unlawful strike.

 Presently before the Court is Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint. 

Specifically, Plaintiff seeks leave to add the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “IBT”) as a

defendant. Plaintiff’s motion was heard on February 13, 2006. Based upon all papers filed to date

and the comments of counsel at the hearing, the motion is granted.

Rule 15(a), Fed.R.Civ.P., provides that leave to amend a complaint “shall be freely given

when justice so requires.” The Ninth Circuit applies Rule 15 liberally. See DCD Programs, Ltd. v.

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 108 Filed 02/15/06 Page 1 of 5
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

Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987). The four factors used to determine the propriety of a

motion for leave to amend are bad faith, undue delay, prejudice to the opposing party, and futility of

the amendment. Id. (citations omitted).

Applying the factors above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend should

be granted. First, there is no evidence of bad faith. Second, there is no evidence of undue delay. 

Plaintiff filed suit in July of 2004, seeking a temporary restraining order. Subsequently, the Court

stayed discovery until September 21, 2005. On January 5, 2006, Plaintiff learned from deposing

Rome Aloise, the Administrative Assistant to the General President of the IBT as well as the

Secretary-Treasurer of the Teamsters Local 853, that “(1) the IBT provided out-of-work benefits to

employees as long as they remained on strike and did not return to work; (2) the IBT reimbursed Mr.

Aloise’s expenses for travel and paid for one of his cell phones; (3) Mr. Aloise received his

assignments directly from the General President of IBT, James Hoffa, and frequently these

assignments were made orally; and (4) that Mr. Aloise did not keep track of his time in any formal

way, and could not therefore establish that his time working on the Local 287 strike was not paid for

by the IBT.” Motion, p.5.

Plaintiff also received documents on January 10, 2006, which Plaintiff believed demonstrated

that Mr. Aloise led the various unions in the strike of Plaintiff’s facilities. More specifically, the

documents allegedly showed that: “(1) Mr. Aloise drafted correspondence to Granite Rock

employees encouraging the strike to continue; (2) Mr. Aloise directed other local unions to send his

correspondence to their members; (3) Mr. Aloise, rather than a representative of Local 287 or the

local union that represented particular employees, directly and frequently communicated with

Granite Rock employees who Local 853 did not represent . . . ; and (4) Mr. Aloise assisted Local

287 in its negotiations with Granite Rock.” Motion, pp.4-5.

Further, on January 18, 2006, Plaintiff deposed Richard Bell, the executive assistant to the

general secretary-treasurer for the IBT, who confirmed that the IBT provided out of work benefits to

Plaintiff’s employees while they were on strike. Motion, p.6. Mr. Bell also disclosed that the IBT

had approved strike benefits for Local 287 before the work stoppage even began. Id. He also

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 108 Filed 02/15/06 Page 2 of 5
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

disclosed that “(1) the IBT monitored Local 287 to ensure that members receiving benefits from the

IBT were out on strike at least four days per week; (2) the IBT had provided a $1.2 million loan to

Local 287, which was outstanding during the strike; (3) the IBT required Local 287 to submit

monthly trustee reports outlining its finances; (4) the IBT required Local 287 to be audited annually

by a certified public accountant, and that a copy of this audit had to be forwarded to the IBT; and (5)

the IBT kept reports that analyzed the financial status of Local 287 and kept reports on Local 287's

status.” Id. The instant motion was filed promptly thereafter, on January 30, 2006.

Third, adding the IBT will not impose substantial prejudice on Defendant. There is, however,

the possibility of prejudice to IBT if the current trial date of April 11, 2006, is not continued. 

Plaintiff acknowledges as much, stating that it “is willing to continue the discovery deadline for this

lawsuit and/or the trial date to allow all parties to conduct further discovery relating to the IBT’s

involvement in the wrongdoing asserted in the Complaint.” Motion, p.11. The Court is prepared to

modify the scheduling order in this case to ameliorate any undue prejudice to IBT if IBT makes such

a request. Therefore, the prejudice factor does not weigh heavily in favor or against granting

Plaintiff’s motion.

Lastly, the proposed amendment does not appear to be futile. The parties generally agree

that an international union may be held responsible for the acts of its affiliated locals if there is

evidence that (1) the international union has an agency relationship with the local; (2) the

international union instigates, ratifies, or encourages illegal activities by the local; or (3) the

international union independently participates in the local’s illegal conduct. See e.g. Carbon Fuel

Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 444 U.S. 212, 216 (1979). Plaintiff’s proposed amended

complaint appears to contain the requisite allegations to support a claim under at least two of the

three theories. Any argument that the claims against the IBT would be subject to dismissal under

Rule 12(b)(6), Fed.R.Civ.P., is premature. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint to add the IBT is

granted. Plaintiff shall file and serve the amended complaint no later than February 17, 2006. 

Plaintiff shall take reasonable measures to serve the amended complaint and summons on the IBT no

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 108 Filed 02/15/06 Page 3 of 5
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 4

later than March 1, 2006.

The Court intends to maintain the April 11, 2006 trial date unless and until a motion to

continue is made and granted for good cause shown. The Court anticipates that the IBT will have

little, if any, reason to participate in the trial because the scope of the trial is currently limited to the

issue of ratification of the collective bargaining agreement, whereas Plaintiff’s claim against the IBT

is based upon the IBT’s conduct during the allegedly unlawful strike. 

Dated: Feb. 14, 2006

04cv2767ibt

 /s/James Ware 

JAMES WARE

United States District Judge

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 108 Filed 02/15/06 Page 4 of 5
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

Deborah Rice drice@littler.com

Duane B. Beeson dbeeson@beesontayer.com

Gabriel Saul Levine gsl@sfcounsel.com

Kimberly Lynn Owens kowens@littler.com

Lisa W. Pau lpau@beesontayer.com

Philip Paturzo ppaturzo@littler.com

Ronald A. Peters rpeters@littler.com

Dated: February 15, 2006 Richard W. Wieking, Clerk

By: /s/JW Chambers 

Melissa Peralta

Courtroom Deputy

Case 5:04-cv-02767-JW Document 108 Filed 02/15/06 Page 5 of 5