Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03461/USCOURTS-cand-4_14-cv-03461-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SARA MCENROE,

Plaintiff,

v.

LOCAL 9400, COMMUNICATION 

WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, et 

al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 14-cv-03461-HSG 

ORDER REGARDING 

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFING

Plaintiff Sara McEnroe filed this action on August 16, 2012, in Sonoma County Superior 

Court, against Defendants Local 9400, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; District 

9, Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO; and Communications Workers of America, 

AFL-CIO. Dkt. No. 1. Defendants removed the case to this Court on July 30, 2014. Id. In the 

operative complaint, filed on August 27, 2014, Plaintiff alleges a single cause of action for breach 

of the duty of fair representation as to Plaintiff’s unlawful termination grievance, which is a 

“hybrid” claim under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act (“LMRA”). Dkt. No. 11.

Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on October 7, 2015. Dkt. No. 41. A 

hearing on the motion was held on November 12, 2015, at which Plaintiff represented that 

additional discovery taken since she filed the opposition to the motion for summary judgment 

demonstrates a genuine dispute of material fact. While the Court doubts that Plaintiff has made 

the required showing under Rule 56(d) that “for specified reasons, [she] cannot present facts 

essential to justify [her] opposition,” the Court finds in an abundance of caution that supplemental 

briefing regarding the additional discovery is warranted to ensure that a decision on the motion for 

summary judgment is made on the basis of a complete evidentiary record. 

Accordingly, Plaintiff is ordered to file a supplemental brief of no more than ten pages, 

Case 4:14-cv-03461-HSG Document 64 Filed 11/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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

Northern District of California

clearly setting out those new facts discovered after the opposition was filed that bear on (1) when 

the alleged breach of the duty of fair representation occurred; (2) what constituted the alleged 

breach of the duty of fair representation; and (3) why there is a genuine dispute of material fact 

regarding whether Defendants breached the duty of fair representation. Plaintiff shall file the 

supplemental brief by November 30, 2015. Defendants need not file a responsive supplemental 

brief unless the Court so orders following its review of Plaintiff’s filing.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2015

________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-03461-HSG Document 64 Filed 11/13/15 Page 2 of 2