Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00221/USCOURTS-akd-3_19-cv-00221-0/pdf.json

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

---

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION 

OF NORTH AMERICA, LOCAL 341, 

Plaintiff,

v.

MAIN BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.,

Defendant.

Case No. 3:19-cv-00221-TMB

ORDER ON DEFENDANT’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS (DKT. 5)

I. INTRODUCTION 

The matter comes before the Court on Defendant Main Building Maintenance, Inc.’s 

(“MBM”) Motion to Dismiss (the “Motion”).

1 The Motion seeks to dismiss the Complaint2 filed 

by Plaintiff Laborers’ International Union of North America, Local 341 (“Local 341”) pursuant to 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure 

to state a claim.3 The Motion was fully briefed by the Parties.4 The Parties have not requested oral 

argument, and the Court finds one would not be helpful. For the reasons stated below, Defendants’

Motion is DENIED.

 1 Dkt. 5 (Motion).

2 Dkt. 1 (Complaint).

3 Dkt. 5 at 1–2.

4 Dkts. 5, 11 (Response), 12 (Reply).

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 1 of 12
2

II. BACKGROUND

The present action concerns the Collective Bargaining Agreement (the “CBA”) between 

the Parties and whether MBM must litigate certain disputes in arbitration.5 Local 341 is a “labor 

organization” as defined by 29 U.S.C. §§ 152(5) and 185.

6 MBM is a private corporation that 

provides housekeeping services in the state of Alaska and an “employer” within the meaning of 

29 U.S.C. §§ 152(6) and 185.7 MBM and Local 341 entered into the CBA effective from 

November 1, 2018 through November 14, 2022.8 The CBA provides that all disputes in connection 

with the interpretation or application of the terms of the CBA must be resolved in binding 

arbitration.9

On April 1, 2019, MBM succeeded a government contract for hospital housekeeping 

services on the Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson in Anchorage, Alaska.10 Simaika Tagaloa was 

an employee of MBM’s predecessor.11 However, when MBM assumed the contract, it informed 

Tagaloa that he would no longer work on the project after the transition.

12 Local 341 initiated 

grievances against MBM for its decisions regarding Tagaloa’s employment.13 Local 341 alleged 

 5 Dkts. 1 at 3–8; 1-1 (CBA).

6 Dkt. 1 at 2.

7 Dkts. 1 at 3; 1-1 at 3.

8 Dkts. 1 at 3; 1-1 at 3.

9 Dkt. 1-1 at 8.

10 Dkt. 1 at 4.

11 Id.

12 Id. at 5. There is a factual dispute as to whether Tagaloa was ever hired by MBM.

13 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 2 of 12
3

that MBM had violated several provisions of the CBA and Executive Order 13495, which, Local 

341 argues, had been incorporated into the CBA by reference.14 Local 341 alleges that MBM 

participated in the grievance process until Local 341 notified MBM that it was submitting the 

grievances to arbitration.15 On May 30, 2019, MBM stated that it would “neither select an 

arbitrator nor participate in the proposed arbitration.”16 Between June 4, 2019 and July 11, 2019, 

Local 341 repeated its demand for arbitration twice.17 Nevertheless, MBM refused to participate 

in arbitration.18

On August 13, 2019, Local 341 filed this action.19 In its Complaint, Local 341 claims MBM 

has violated the CBA by refusing to arbitrate Local 341’s grievances.20 Local 341 requests “that 

the Court issue an Order compelling the arbitration without delay of all claims in the grievance

before a mutually selected arbitrator in accordance with the grievance and arbitration procedure in 

Article IX of the collective bargaining agreement.”21 MBM moved to dismiss Local 341’s 

Complaint on November 14, 2019 under Rules 12(b)(1) and (6).

22

 14 Id.

15 Id. at 7.

16 Id.; Dkt. 1-5 (Email From MBM’s Counsel).

17 Dkt. 1 at 7.

18 Id.

19 Dkt. 1. 

20 Id. at 7–8.

21 Id. at 8.

22 Dkt. 5.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 3 of 12
4

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)

MBM has moved to dismiss the Complaint, in part, because it argues the Court lacks 

subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1). “[I]n reviewing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss 

for lack of jurisdiction, [courts] take the allegations in the plaintiff’s complaint as true.”23 “Once 

challenged, the party asserting subject matter jurisdiction has the burden of proving its 

existence.”24 “A federal court is presumed to lack jurisdiction in a particular case unless the 

contrary affirmatively appears.”25 Moreover, a Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack may be facial or 

factual, depending on whether the challenger asserts that the complaint, on its face, is insufficient 

to invoke federal jurisdiction or whether the challenger disputes the truth of the allegations 

themselves.26 For a facial attack, “‘the court must only consider the allegations of the complaint 

and documents referenced therein and attached thereto, in the light most favorable to the

plaintiff.’”27 For a factual attack, the Court may consider evidence outside the pleadings to resolve 

factual disputes as to jurisdiction.28 When faced with a challenge to its subject matter jurisdiction 

 23 Wolfe v. Strankman, 392 F.3d 358, 362 (9th Cir. 2004). 

24 Rattlesnake Coal. v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 509 F.3d 1095, 1102 n.1 (9th Cir. 2007). See also 

Alaska v. Kerry, 972 F. Supp. 2d 1111, 1120 (D. Alaska 2013); Alaska v. Jewell, 2014 WL 

3778590, 4:13-cv-00034-SLG (D. Alaska July 29, 2014). 

25 A–Z Int’l v. Phillips, 323 F.3d 1141, 1145 (9th Cir. 2003). 

26 Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004) (citing White v. Lee, 228 

F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir. 2000). 

27 Jensen v. Locke, No. 3:08-cv-00286-TMB, 2009 WL 10674336, *2 (D. Alaska Nov. 9, 2009) 

(quoting Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000)).

28 See Assoc. of Am. Med. Coll. v. United States, 217 F .3d 770, 778 (9th Cir. 2000).

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 4 of 12
5

under Rule 12(b)(1), the court must resolve that issue before determining whether the complaint 

states a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).29

B. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

MBM also move under Rule 12(b)(6) to dismiss Local 341’s Complaint for failure to state 

a claim upon which relief can be granted.30 In order to survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 

12(b)(6), a complaint must set forth “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the 

pleader is entitled to relief,”31 and “contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a 

claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’”32 In ruling on a 12(b)(6) motion, the Court must 

“accept all factual allegations of the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor

of the nonmoving party.”33

In determining whether a complaint pleads sufficient facts to cross “the line between 

possibility and plausibility,” “[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” and 

“conclusory statements” do not suffice.34 However, a plaintiff need not plead “all facts necessary 

to carry” his or her burden.35 “Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief 

 29 Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998). 

30 Dkt. 5 at 1.

31 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2).

32 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677‒78 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 

U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).

33 Arpin v. Santa Clara Valley Transp. Agency, 261 F.3d 912, 923 (9th Cir. 2001) (quoting Nat’l 

Ass’n for the Advancement of Psychoanalysis v. Cal. Bd. of Psychology, 228 F.3d 1043, 1049 (9th 

Cir. 2000)). 

34 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557).

35 Al-Kidd v. Ashcroft, 580 F.3d 949, 977 (9th Cir. 2009), rev’d on other grounds 563 U.S. 713 

(2011).

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 5 of 12
6

. . . [is] a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience 

and common sense.”36 So long as plaintiffs meet this standard of plausibility, their claim survives 

a 12(b)(6) motion even if defendants present a similarly plausible description of the disputed 

events.37 “A dismissal for failure to state a claim is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that the 

plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.”38

Generally, the court should not consider materials outside of the pleadings when ruling on 

a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.39 Courts may consider additional materials where 

the complaint “necessarily relies” on those documents and their authenticity is not disputed.40

IV. DISCUSSION

Local 341 raises a single claim for relief: that the CBA requires MBM to arbitrate Local 

341’s grievances in binding arbitration.41 However, MBM argues that Local 341 has not exhausted 

its administrative remedies and, therefore, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over 

this case.42 Additionally, MBM contends that because President Trump revoked Executive Order 

 36 Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679 (citation omitted).

37 Starr v. Baca, 652 F.3d 1202, 1216-17 (9th Cir. 2011).

38 Arpin, 261 F.3d at 923 (quoting Pillsbury, Madison, & Sutro v. Lerner, 31 F.3d 924, 928 (9th 

Cir. 1994)).

39 Id. at 925 (citing Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994)). 

40Daniels-Hall v. Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2010) (citations omitted). 

41 Dkt. 1 at 7–8.

42 Dkt. 5 at 5–8.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 6 of 12
7

13495, the Executive Order cannot form the basis of Local 341’s Complaint.43 Accordingly, MBM 

argues, the Complaint should be dismissed with prejudice pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and (6).44

A. The Court Has Subject Matter Jurisdiction Pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor 

Management Relations Act.

Local 341 states that this Court has jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor 

Management Relations Act (“Section 301”)45 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331.46 Section 301(a) provides that 

“suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing 

employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter . . . may be brought in any 

district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties . . . .” Therefore, according with 

the plain meaning of the statute, to have jurisdiction under Section 301(a), this Court need only 

find that: (1) MBM is an “employer,” (2) Local 341 is a “labor organization representing 

employees,” and (3) the claim is for a violation of a contract between the two Parties. 

MBM does not dispute that it is an “employer” or that Local 341 is a “labor organization”

within the meaning of under Section 301(a). However, MBM alleges that Tagaloa was a 

“nondisplaced worker” and not MBM’s employee and, therefore, MBM argues that Local 341 is 

not a “labor organization representing employees.”47 Further, MBM contends that “[Local 341]

has cited no case where jurisdiction was conferred under Section 301(a) for nondisplaced workers 

 43 Id. at 8.

44 Id. at 1.

45 29 U.S.C. § 185.

46 Dkt. 1 at 2.

47 Dkt. 12 at 2–4 (emphasis in original).

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 7 of 12
8

such as Tagaloa.”48 However, MBM misconstrues the posture of this case. At heart, this is a 

contract dispute between Local 341 and MBM.

49 Although the subject matter might concern 

Tagaloa, he is not a party to this action. Therefore, Tagaloa’s employment status or whether 

Tagaloa—a stranger to this action—exhausted his administrative remedies, is irrelevant for the 

purposes of the Court’s jurisdiction over Local 341’s claims. Local 341 represents employees, 

some of whom work for MBM.50 Local 341, on behalf of the employees it represents, negotiated 

the CBA with MBM.51 Now, Local 341, on behalf of the employees it represents, is suing MBM 

for violations of the CBA.52 Although the dispute may have arisen from MBM’s dealings with an 

alleged nondisplaced worker, that does not change the fact that Local 341 alleges a violation of 

the CBA. Therefore, this Court has subject matter jurisdiction to hear this case pursuant to Section 

301(a). 

Accordingly, MBM’s Motion as made under Rule 12(b)(1) is DENIED. 

 48 Id. at 4.

49 Dkt. 1 at 7–8.

50 See Dkt. 1-1. Section § 152, which provides the definition of terms used in Section 301(a), 

provides:

The term “employee” shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the 

employees of a particular employer, unless this subchapter explicitly states 

otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a 

consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any 

unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially 

equivalent employment . . . .

51 See Dkt. 1-1.

52 Dkt. 1.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 8 of 12
9

B. Local 341 Has Sufficiently Stated Its Claim for a Violation of the CBA.

Local 341 alleges that MBM breached the CBA by failing to submit Local 341’s underlying 

grievance to arbitration.53 MBM argues that Local 341 has failed to state a claim and dismissal is 

appropriate pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6).54 Under Rule 12(b)(6), a district court must dismiss a 

complaint if it fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) 

motion to dismiss, the plaintiff must allege “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible 

on its face.”55 Where a complaint seeks to compel arbitration, it may only be dismissed for failure 

to state a claim where “it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not 

susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute. Doubts should be resolved in favor 

of coverage.”56

Here, it is undisputed that the CBA is a contract between the Parties. Article IX of the CBA 

entitled “Grievance Procedure and Arbitration” governs the resolution of disputes arising under 

the CBA.

57 Section 1 of Article IX provides “[t]he parties to this Agreement, in the interest of 

resolving all disputes, complaints or grievances, in connection with the interpretation or 

application of the terms of this Agreement, have settled upon the following orderly and peaceful 

procedures . . . .”58

 53 Dkt. 1 at 7–8.

54 Dkt. 5 at 1.

55 Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 570.

56 Serv. Employees Int’l Union v. St. Vincent Med. Ctr., 344 F.3d 977, 985 (9th Cir. 2003) (internal 

quotation omitted).

57 Dkt. 1-1 at 8.

58 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 9 of 12
10

The CBA goes on to describe a three-step process to resolve disputes concerning the 

CBA.59 First, the complaint is taken up with the Shop Steward, who investigates the dispute and 

reports it to the Union Business Manager.

60 The Union Business Manager then meets with MBM’s 

manager to resolve the dispute.61 If the dispute is not resolved at Step One, Step Two requires the 

Union Business Manager to refer the dispute to the General President of the International Union.62

An International Union Designee and MBM must then meet to resolve the dispute.63 If the Parties 

cannot resolve the dispute in Step Two, the General President of the International Union, or his 

designee, may decide to submit the matter to arbitration under Step Three.64

Local 341 alleges in its Complaint that Local 341 initiated the grievance process on 

April 5, 2019.65 Local 341 asserts multiple contractual violations of the CBA, including Article 

VI, section 4; Article VIII; Article X, section 1; Article XV; Article XXVI, sections 2 and 3; and 

Article XXXII.66 Additionally, because the CBA allegedly incorporates federal law, Local 341 

argues that MBM violated Executive Order 13495.67 Local 341 alleges that, on May 13, 14, and 

 59 Id.

60 Id.

61 Id.

62 Id.

63 Id.

64 Id.

65 Dkt. 1 at 5.

66 Id.

67 Id.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 10 of 12
11

16, 2019, after proceeding through the grievance steps, it informed MBM that it was submitting 

the dispute to arbitration.

68

MBM argues that “the fact that the CBA has an arbitration provision is irrelevant where

Tagaloa is not a party to nor covered by the same.”69 The Court disagrees. Regardless of Tagaloa’s

employment status, the CBA’s arbitration clause covers “all disputes, complaints or grievances, in 

connection with the interpretation or application of the terms of this Agreement.”70 It may be true, 

as MBM argues, that Tagaloa was not an employee and, therefore, MBM did not breach any 

provision of the CBA. It may also be true, that because Executive Order 13495 was revoked, 

MBM’s decision not to hire Tagaloa did not violate the CBA. However, it is axiomatic that “in 

deciding whether the parties have agreed to submit a particular grievance to arbitration, a court is 

not to rule on the potential merits of the underlying claims.”71 Each of the arguments raised by 

MBM in its Motion and Reply are arguments regarding the merits of Local 341’s grievances veiled 

as arguments contesting the Court’s jurisdiction to compel arbitration or the sufficiency of Local 

341’s pleadings. It is up to the arbitrator to determine whether Tagaloa’s employment status or the 

revocation of Executive Order 13495 impacts the Parties’ contractual obligations under the CBA.

Assuming the truth of Local 341’s claims, if the Parties are unable to resolve a dispute at 

Step One or Step Two, Article IX of the CBA directs the Parties to litigate “all disputes, complaints 

or grievances, in connection with the interpretation or application of the terms of this Agreement”

 68 Id. at 7.

69 Dkt. 12 at 4–5.

70 Dkt. 1-1 at 8.

71 AT & T Techs., Inc., 475 U.S. at 649. 

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 11 of 12
12

in binding arbitration.72 Here, Local 341’s grievance relates to MBM’s decision not to hire 

Tagaloa, which Local 341 claims violates multiple provisions of the CBA that expressly relate to 

hiring decisions.

73 Therefore, it cannot “be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause 

is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.”74 Local 341 alleges that it 

followed the dispute resolution procedures set forth in the CBA but asserts that MBM has refused

to participate in arbitration under Article IX.75 Local 341, therefore, has adequately pleaded that 

the substance of the dispute is arbitrable under the CBA, that the dispute is ripe for arbitration, and 

that MBM has repudiated its contractual obligation to arbitrate. 

Accordingly, MBM’s Motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is DENIED. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the forgoing reasons, MBM’s Motion at docket 5 is DENIED. Pursuant to Rule

12(a)(4)(A), MBM may file its Answer to Local 341’s Complaint within fourteen (14) days of this 

Order’s issuance.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated at Anchorage, Alaska, this 24th day of January, 2020.

/s/ Timothy M. Burgess

TIMOTHY M. BURGESS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 72 Dkt. 1-1 at 8.

73 Dkt. 1 at 4–6.

74 Serv. Employees Int’l Union, 344 F.3d at 985.

75 Dkt. 1 at 5–7.

Case 3:19-cv-00221-TMB Document 13 Filed 01/24/20 Page 12 of 12