Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00891/USCOURTS-azd-2_10-cv-00891-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
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

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Raymnd S. Montoya, Harvey DelGado,

Charlie Umi, Marcie Clark, Elmo Torrez,

Justo Peralta, Tony Hill, Nathan Duff, and

Carlos Gonzales, on behalf of themselves

and all other members of Local 383,

Laborer’s International Union of North

America, 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Laborers’ International Union of North

America, and Terrance M. O’Sullivan, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-0891-PHX-GMS

ORDER

Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining

Order. (Dkt.#2). After reviewing the pleadings and determining a hearing to be unnecessary,

the Court issues the following order. 

To obtain a temporary restraining order pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure, a plaintiff “must establish that [she] is likely to succeed on the merits, that

he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance

of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Natural

Res. Def. Council, 129 S. Ct. 365, 374 (2008). Furthermore, Rule 65 does not require the

district court hold an evidentiary hearing before ruling on a pending motion for preliminary

Case 2:10-cv-00891-GMS Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 1 of 5
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 -

injunctive relief. See generally Bradley v. Pittsburgh Bd. of Educ., 910 F.2d 1172, 1175 (3d

Cir. 1990) (addressing the issue in the context of a motion for a preliminary injunction rather

than a motion for a temporary restraining order). The decision of whether to hold a hearing

is left at the sound discretion of the district court. 6 JAMES WM. MOOORE, ET AL., MOORE’S

FEDERAL PRACTICE ¶ 10.22(6)(a) (3d ed. 1999). In any case in which a party seeks an

evidentiary hearing, the movant “must be able to persuade the court that the issue is indeed

genuine and material and so a hearing would be productive—he must show in other words

that he has and intends to introduce evidence that if believed will so weaken the moving

party's case as to affect the judge's decision on whether to issue an injunction.” Ty, Inc. v.

GMA Accessories, Inc., 132 F.3d 1167, 1171 (2d Cir. 1997).

On April 21, 2010, Plaintiffs, who are members in good standing of Local 383,

Laborers’ International Union of North America, AFL-CIO, filed suit and moved for a

temporary restraining order against the Laborers’ International Union of North America

(LIUNA) and its General President, Terence M. O’Sullivan. Plaintiffs assert claims of

Improper Disciplinary Action and Infringement of Rights under 29 U.S.C. § 411 (Count

One), Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith (Count Two), Interference with

Prospective Business (Count Three), Request of a Temporary Restraining Order (Count

Four), and a Declaratory Judgment (Count Five). Plaintiffs’ claims arise out of allegations

that Defendants will potentially transfer the Mohave County, Arizona territory out of the

jurisdiction of Local 383—which encompasses Arizona—and place the territory under the

auspices of Local 872—which is located in Nevada. 

Plaintiffs do not dispute that LIUNA has the ability to reorganize the jurisdiction of

its local affiliates pursuant to the terms of its constitution. Plaintiffs are instead alleging that

the removal of the Mohave County territory from out of the jurisdiction of Local 383 is a

disciplinary action, since the impending reorganization is based on allegations that Local

383 has not been properly policing its territory in Mohave County, and as a disciplinary

action, Local 383 members are entitled to a full and fair opportunity to be heard before the

territory is removed pursuant to the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29

Case 2:10-cv-00891-GMS Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 2 of 5
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 -

U.S.C. § 411 and the LIUNA constitution. According to Plaintiffs, a fair opportunity to be

heard should include service of process containing specific written charges against Local

383, a reasonable amount of time for Local 383 members to prepare an adequate defense, and

a hearing before a neutral and impartial decision maker. Although a hearing is scheduled to

take place on Monday, April 26, 2010 in Kingman, Arizona, Plaintiffs claim that the

impending hearing lacks the basic procedural fairness guaranteed by federal law and the

LIUNA constitution. 

Plaintiffs specifically claim that the forum is inconvenient since most members will

be unable to drive from Local 383 headquarters in Phoenix, Arizona to attend the hearing,

that the format of the hearing is inadequate since Local 383 members cannot cross-examine

adverse witnesses or secure adequate representation to appear on their behalf, and that the

fairness of the impending hearing is in doubt as LIUNA controls the power to appoint panel

members who will preside over the hearing. 

Defendants have responded to Plaintiffs’ motion, arguing that Plaintiffs have not met

the legal standard for the granting a temporary restraining order. Defendants allege that

Plaintiffs have been unable to demonstrate the probability of irreparable harm or show a

likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. Defendants claim that the decision to transfer

the Mohave County territory will not be made at Monday’s hearing, and that the hearing

panel will instead only take evidence and hear from concerned parties. According to

Defendants, the hearing panel will at a later point submit its Findings of Fact and make a

recommendation to LIUNA’s General Executive Board for their ultimate review and

approval. Defendants also claim that any decision reached by LIUNA’s General Executive

Board is subject to appellate administrative review under the LINUA constitution.

The Court agrees with Defendants and finds that Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate

the likelihood of suffering irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary injunctive relief,

and that the balance of equities does not tip in Plaintiffs’ favor. Their motion must

accordingly be denied. 

The Court first notes that there are serious questions as to the timing of Plaintiffs’

Case 2:10-cv-00891-GMS Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 3 of 5
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 -

request for a temporary restraining order. Plaintiffs have apparently been aware of the

pending hearing concerning the territorial reorganization of Mohave County for quite some

time. Defendants have in fact alleged that the original hearing was scheduled for March 17,

2010 and was reset for April 26, 2010 in order accommodate concerns raised by Plaintiffs.

Based on a review of the Complaint and the motion for a temporary restraining order, it is

not at all clear to the Court why Plaintiffs waited until the proverbial “11th hour” to move

for injunctive relief, considering the likelihood that Plaintiffs have known about the hearing

for over a month, at a minimum. The timing of the motion both cuts against the merits of

Plaintiffs’ substantive allegations regarding the fairness of the hearing and also tips the

balance of equities in Defendants’ favor. 

With respect to the alleged unfairness of the impending April 26, 2010 hearing,

nothing in the procedures outlined by the Parties would justify the Court in issuing an

injunction. “Internal union hearings are not held to the standards applicable to judicial

proceedings and are not required to provide the full panoply of procedural protections

associated with judicial proceedings.” Mason Tenders Local Union 59 v. Laborers’ Int’l

Union of N. Am., 924 F. Supp. 528, 545 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), aff’d 101 F.3d 686 (2d Cir. 1996).

Such hearings must be shown to only conform with the union’s constitution and the internal

rules that its members have adopted. Id. At this stage of the litigation, Plaintiffs have not

adequately demonstrated that the April 26, 2010 hearing or the procedures that have been

generally utilized throughout the reorganization process have violated LIUNA’s constitution

so as to justify the harsh remedy of an injunction. Plaintiffs do not dispute that they have the

ability to attend the upcoming hearing and make a statement or present evidence on their

behalf. In addition, while the forum of Kingman, Arizona is undoubtedly inconvenient for

many of the Local 383 members located in Phoenix, the Court would be remiss if it did not

note that Kingman is the seat of government for Mohave County and is not a per se

inappropriate location for the hearing given the subject matter that is to be addressed. 

Plaintiffs have also failed to carry their burden of persuasion regarding the prospect

of imminent harm. As Defendants note, a decision to remove Mohave County from out of

Case 2:10-cv-00891-GMS Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 4 of 5
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

- 5 -

the jurisdiction of Local 383 will not be made at the hearing scheduled for Monday, April

26, 2010. According to the Court’s review of the relevant pleadings in this case, such a

decision, if it is to arrive at all, will be issued at a later date by LIUNA’s General Executive

Board, which is not the body conducting the hearing. Furthermore, even if aggrieved by the

General Executive Board’s eventual determination, Plaintiffs will retain the right to seek

appellate review under LIUNA’s constitution. In essence, what Plaintiffs are attempting to

do is ask the Court to enjoin an administrative body from reaching a decision that they don’t

agree with, even though such a decision has not yet been made, and the decision, whatever

it may be, remains subject to approval by a more senior administrative body. The Court has

seen no evidence to suggest that hearing panel’s recommendation on the removal of Mohave

County territory from Local 383 is predetermined or irrevocable. Therefore, as currently

constructed, the harm alleged by Plaintiffs in their motion is far too speculative to warrant

injunctive relief. 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining

Order. (Dkt.#2).

DATED this 23rd day of April, 2010.

Case 2:10-cv-00891-GMS Document 11 Filed 04/23/10 Page 5 of 5