Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04817/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04817-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 730
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Report &amp; Disclosure
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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

ZEV KVITKY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KRISTY SERMERSHEIM, LOCAL 715 OF THE

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04817 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND

VACATING HEARING

On July 8, 2005, defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which was set for hearing on August

12, 2005. The Court deems this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion

for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Zev Kvitky is a member of Local 715 of the Service Employees International Union and was

a candidate for the office of Executive Secretary. Defendant Kristy Sermersheim is the current Executive

Secretary of Local 715 and was the incumbent candidate for the office during the events that led up to the

lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2004, against defendants Kristy Sermersheim and Local 715,

alleging violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”). 29 U.S.C. § 411.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 31, 2005. On May 12, 2005, this Court granted defendants’

motion to dismiss with leave to amend plaintiff’s claim of denial of his right to assemble with other union

members pursuant to § 411(a)(2). Plaintiff’s claim for denial of his right to speak at the meeting was dismissed
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

without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until May 20, 2005, to file an amended complaint but has not done so.

Defendants now seek $6,465.51 in attorney’s fees incurred in defending the lawsuit, alleging that

plaintiff filed the lawsuit in bad faith in order to undermine Sermersheim’s re-election campaign. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may rely on itsinherent powers to “assess attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith,

vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-47 (1991)

(citations omitted). In such cases, the underlying rationale of “fee shifting” is punitive and “can be imposed only

in exceptionalcases and for dominating reasons of justice.” Beaudry MotorCo. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780

F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted); see Hall v. Cole , 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973). A claim that has

some legaland factualsupport considered in the light ofthe reasonable beliefs ofthe individualmaking the claim

is not made in bad faith. See Beaudry Motor Co., 780 F.2d at 756. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants allege that plaintiff brought this action in bad faith to serve his own political purposes, and

with no intention of prosecuting the case. According to defendants, a flyer that was distributed at the union

office and at union members’ work sites used the lawsuit in an effort to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign.

Defs.’ Mot., Ex. A. The flyer made explicit reference to the lawsuit and stated that Sermersheim was using

union dues to pay for the litigation costs; it also advertised plaintiff’s own campaign for Executive Secretary.

Defendants contend that, although plaintiff states that he did not make the flyer, he has never denied

participating in its distribution and made no attempt to stop it. Defendants also argue that plaintiff’s decision

to stipulate to the dismissalwith prejudice ofseveral allegations in his original and first supplemental complaint

and his failure to file an amended complaint indicate that he never intended to pursue the case, and that he has

since misrepresented the lawsuit by claiming that it was not filed against the union itself.

Plaintiff argues that he did not file his lawsuit to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign. He states that

he did not produce any flyers during his campaign that mentioned the lawsuit, and he did not produce the flyer

discussed in defendants’ motion. Kvitky Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. The flyers were produced by Emma Davis and other
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

unionmembers. Davis Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff also states that defendant Sermersheim first informed union members

about the lawsuit during a November 16, 2004 Executive Board meeting. Kvitky Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff contends

that he believed that defendants violated his rights under the LMRDA and that he fully intended to pursue his

lawsuit. Kvitky Decl. ¶ 6.

This Court does not find evidence ofbad faith on plaintiff’s part to justify an award of attorneys’ fees.

The distributionofflyers circulated by plaintiff’ssupporters, plaintiff’sstipulated dismissalofseveralallegations

in his first supplemental complaint, and his failure to file an amended complaint do not show that plaintiff filed

the lawsuit solely to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign. In its May 12, 2005 order granting defendants’

motion to dismiss, the Court found that plaintiff might be able to state a claim for the denial of his right of

assembly under the LMRDA. Under the circumstances, plaintiff could have had the reasonable beliefthat his

rights had been violated. See Beaudry Motor Co., 780 F.2d at 756. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion

for attorney’s fees. The August 12, 2005 hearing is hereby VACATED. [Docket # 27]

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge
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

ZEV KVITKY,

Plaintiff,

 v.

KRISTY SERMERSHEIM, LOCAL 715 OF THE

SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL

UNION, AFL-CIO/CLC,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04817 SI

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES, AND

VACATING HEARING

On July 8, 2005, defendants filed a motion for attorneys’ fees, which was set for hearing on August

12, 2005. The Court deems this motion appropriate for decision without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local

Rule 7-1(b). Having carefully considered the papers submitted, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion

for the reasons set forth below.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Zev Kvitky is a member of Local 715 of the Service Employees International Union and was

a candidate for the office of Executive Secretary. Defendant Kristy Sermersheim is the current Executive

Secretary of Local 715 and was the incumbent candidate for the office during the events that led up to the

lawsuit. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on November 14, 2004, against defendants Kristy Sermersheim and Local 715,

alleging violations of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”). 29 U.S.C. § 411.

Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on March 31, 2005. On May 12, 2005, this Court granted defendants’

motion to dismiss with leave to amend plaintiff’s claim of denial of his right to assemble with other union

members pursuant to § 411(a)(2). Plaintiff’s claim for denial of his right to speak at the meeting was dismissed
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

without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until May 20, 2005, to file an amended complaint but has not done so.

Defendants now seek $6,465.51 in attorney’s fees incurred in defending the lawsuit, alleging that

plaintiff filed the lawsuit in bad faith in order to undermine Sermersheim’s re-election campaign. 

LEGAL STANDARD

A court may rely on itsinherent powers to “assess attorney’s fees when a party has acted in bad faith,

vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons.” Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 46-47 (1991)

(citations omitted). In such cases, the underlying rationale of “fee shifting” is punitive and “can be imposed only

in exceptionalcases and for dominating reasons of justice.” Beaudry MotorCo. v. Abko Properties, Inc., 780

F.2d 751, 756 (9th Cir. 1986) (citations omitted); see Hall v. Cole , 412 U.S. 1, 5 (1973). A claim that has

some legaland factualsupport considered in the light ofthe reasonable beliefs ofthe individualmaking the claim

is not made in bad faith. See Beaudry Motor Co., 780 F.2d at 756. 

DISCUSSION

Defendants allege that plaintiff brought this action in bad faith to serve his own political purposes, and

with no intention of prosecuting the case. According to defendants, a flyer that was distributed at the union

office and at union members’ work sites used the lawsuit in an effort to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign.

Defs.’ Mot., Ex. A. The flyer made explicit reference to the lawsuit and stated that Sermersheim was using

union dues to pay for the litigation costs; it also advertised plaintiff’s own campaign for Executive Secretary.

Defendants contend that, although plaintiff states that he did not make the flyer, he has never denied

participating in its distribution and made no attempt to stop it. Defendants also argue that plaintiff’s decision

to stipulate to the dismissalwith prejudice ofseveral allegations in his original and first supplemental complaint

and his failure to file an amended complaint indicate that he never intended to pursue the case, and that he has

since misrepresented the lawsuit by claiming that it was not filed against the union itself.

Plaintiff argues that he did not file his lawsuit to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign. He states that

he did not produce any flyers during his campaign that mentioned the lawsuit, and he did not produce the flyer

discussed in defendants’ motion. Kvitky Decl. ¶¶ 2, 4. The flyers were produced by Emma Davis and other
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

unionmembers. Davis Decl. ¶ 2. Plaintiff also states that defendant Sermersheim first informed union members

about the lawsuit during a November 16, 2004 Executive Board meeting. Kvitky Decl. ¶ 3. Plaintiff contends

that he believed that defendants violated his rights under the LMRDA and that he fully intended to pursue his

lawsuit. Kvitky Decl. ¶ 6.

This Court does not find evidence ofbad faith on plaintiff’s part to justify an award of attorneys’ fees.

The distributionofflyers circulated by plaintiff’ssupporters, plaintiff’sstipulated dismissalofseveralallegations

in his first supplemental complaint, and his failure to file an amended complaint do not show that plaintiff filed

the lawsuit solely to undermine Sermersheim’s campaign. In its May 12, 2005 order granting defendants’

motion to dismiss, the Court found that plaintiff might be able to state a claim for the denial of his right of

assembly under the LMRDA. Under the circumstances, plaintiff could have had the reasonable beliefthat his

rights had been violated. See Beaudry Motor Co., 780 F.2d at 756. 

Accordingly, defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees is DENIED.

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court hereby DENIES defendants’ motion

for attorney’s fees. The August 12, 2005 hearing is hereby VACATED. [Docket # 27]

The Clerk shall close the file.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 8, 2005

 

SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge