Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05039/USCOURTS-cand-5_05-cv-05039-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 720
Nature of Suit: Labor Management Relations Act
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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 1

 This disposition is not designated for publication and may not be cited.

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

NOT FOR CITATION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

EVAGELIA LISA VORGIAS,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

THE STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, ROBERT

HAWLEY, LAWRENCE J. DAL CERRO, and

SEIU LOCAL 535,

 Defendants.

Case Number C 05-5039 JF (PVT) 

ORDER1 GRANTING MOTION TO

DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535

WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

[re doc. no. 20]

Defendant Service Employees International Union Local 535 (“SEIU Local 535”) moves

to dismiss the first amended complaint of Plaintiff Evagelia Lisa Vorgias (“Vorgias”). The Court

has considered the briefing submitted by the parties as well as the oral arguments presented at the

hearing on October 27, 2006. For the reasons discussed below, the motion will be granted

without leave to amend.

I. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Evagelia Lisa Vorgias (“Vorgias”) filed this action on December 6, 2005 and

filed the operative first amended complaint (“FAC”) on August 31, 2006 following dismissal of

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 6
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

 A Skelly hearing is a pretermination opportunity for the employee to respond to the

charges against him or her. See Skelly v. State Personnel Bd., 15 Cal.3d 194, 215 (1975).

3

 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 

2

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

her original complaint with leave to amend. She alleges that she was employed as a prosecutor in

the Office of the Chief Trial Counsel of the California State Bar from November 1987 until she

was placed on investigatory suspension for alleged misconduct in May 2003. Among other

things, Vorgias was alleged to have been incompetent, negligent, dishonest and absent without

leave. The California State Bar conducted an investigation and scheduled a Skelly hearing2 for

August 2003. Vorgias alleges that she was not provided with relevant documents necessary to

prepare for the hearing. The California State Bar terminated Vorgias’ employment in October

2003.

Shortly after her termination, Vorgias filed a grievance through her union, SEIU Local

535. Vorgias alleges that SEIU Local 535 delayed progress on her grievance, failed to

communicate with her, failed to pursue settlement options with the California State Bar, failed to

pursue witnesses and other exculpatory evidence, and otherwise failed in its duty of

representation. In March 2005, SEIU Local 535 notified Vorgias that it would not pursue

arbitration in her case. In June 2005 Vorgias was notified that the union would uphold the

decision of Local 535.

Vorgias originally asserted that SEIU Local 535’s conduct violated section 301 of the

Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (“LMRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 185. The Court dismissed the

LMRA claim after concluding that the collective bargaining agreement at issue is not governed

by § 301 because the California State Bar is not an “employer” within the meaning of that

provision. Vorgias requested leave to amend so that she could reframe her claim against SEIU

Local 535 as a civil rights claim or other appropriate claim. Vorgias now appears to allege a §

19833 claim against SEIU Local 535, as well as a state law claim for violation of the duty of fair

representation.

II. LEGAL STANDARD

For purposes of a motion to dismiss, the plaintiff’s allegations are taken as true, and the

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

Court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Jenkins v.

McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Leave to amend must be granted unless it is clear that the

complaint’s deficiencies cannot be cured by amendment. Lucas v. Department of Corrections,

66 F.3d 245, 248 (9th Cir. 1995). When amendment would be futile, however, dismissal may be

ordered with prejudice. Dumas v. Kipp, 90 F.3d 386, 393 (9th Cir. 1996). 

III. DISCUSSION

A. Section 1983 Claim

Section 1983 imposes liability on any person who deprives another of a federally

protected right while acting under the color of state law. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. To make out a claim

under § 1983, the plaintiff must allege that (1) the defendant acted under color of state law, and

(2) deprived the plaintiff of rights secured by the United States Constitution or federal statutes. 

Ortez v. Washington County, 88 F.3d 804, 810 (1996).

The FAC alleges that SEIU Local 535 is a labor organization operating in Oakland,

California. FAC ¶ 5. Vorgias does not allege that SEIU Local 535 is an agency of the State of

California or the State Bar. Instead, she asserts that SEIU Local 535 acted in concert with the

California State Bar to deprive her of due process. A private agency’s action may be considered

to be “under color of state law” when there is significant state involvement in the action. 

Franklin v. Fox, 312 F.2d 423, 444 (9th Cir. 2002). “Under the joint action test, courts examine

whether state officials and private parties have acted in concert in effecting a particular

deprivation of constitutional rights.” Id. at 445 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 

“The test focuses on whether the state has so far insinuated itself into a position of

interdependence with the private actor that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the

challenged activity.” Id. (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “To be liable as

co-conspirators, each participant in a conspiracy need not know the exact details of the plan, but

each participant must at least share the common objective of the conspiracy.” Id. In order to

hold a private actor liable pursuant to § 1983, the private actor “must share with the public entity

the goal of violating a plaintiff’s constitutional rights.” Id. 

The Court concludes that Vorgias has not alleged and cannot allege facts sufficient to

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 3 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

demonstrate joint action under these standards. To the contrary, it appears from the allegations

of the FAC that SEIU Local 535 acted at arms’ length in dealing with the California State Bar. 

SEIU Local 535 did in fact review Vorgias’ grievance, although it ultimately determined not to

take the grievance to arbitration on Vorgias’ behalf. Vorgias alleges that during this process,

agents of the California State Bar lied to SEIU Local 535 regarding Vorgias’ grievance. 

However, even when pressed to do so during oral argument, Vorgias could not identify any

conduct of the union that would rise to the level of joint action. In short, the FAC is devoid of

facts sufficient to support Vorgias’ conclusory allegations that SEIU Local 535 and the California

State Bar acted jointly to deprive her of due process. See Leahy v. Board of Trustees of

Community College Dist. No. 508, 912 F.2d 917, 921-22 (7th Cir. 1990) (dismissing § 1983

claim against union that failed to pursue plaintiff’s grievance to arbitration on ground that

conclusory allegations of joint action between union and city college were insufficient). Based

upon the facts already alleged, it does not appear that Vorgias could make out a viable § 1983

claim against SEIU Local 535 even if she were granted leave to amend. Accordingly, the § 1983

claim will be dismissed without leave to amend.

B. State Law Claim For Breach Of Duty Of Fair Representation

With respect to Vorgias’ state law claim for breach of the duty of fair representation, it

appears that such claim properly should be adjudicated, at least in the first instance, by the Public

Employment Relations Board (“PERB”) of the State of California. See Anderson v. California

Faculty Assn., 25 Cal. App.4th 207, 212 (1994) (making clear that the PERB has exclusive

jurisdiction to address a union member’s claim of breach of the duty of fair representation). 

Vorgias alleges that she in fact filed a claim with the PERB in August 2006; she does not allege

the status of that claim. Even assuming that Vorgias could pursue a fair representation claim

without exhausting her remedies with the PERB, this Court would decline to exercise

supplemental jurisdiction over such claim. Because Vorgias has failed to state a viable federal

law claim against SEIU Local 535, her fair representation claim against SEIU Local 535 would

have to be considered supplemental to her civil rights claims against State Bar Assistant Chief

Trial Counsel Lawrence Dal Cerro (“Dal Cerro”) and State Bar Deputy Director Robert Hawley

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 4 of 6
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

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

(“Hawley”). It is not at all clear whether Vorgias’ civil rights claims against Dal Cerro and

Hawley are viable; those claims are the subject of a motion to dismiss that is set for hearing on

November 17, 2006. Even if the claims against Dal Cerro and Hawley do go forward, however,

Vorgias has not demonstrated any connection between the conduct of Dal Cerro and Hawley on

the one hand and SEIU Local 535 on the other. Her claims against Dal Cerro and Hawley center

on alleged violations of her federal civil rights by her employer, while her claims against SEIU

Local 535 center on her union’s obligations to her under the operative collective bargaining

agreement and state law. 

IV. ORDER

The motion to dismiss of SEIU Local 535 is GRANTED WITHOUT LEAVE TO

AMEND.

Dated: 11/2/06

___________________________

JEREMY FOGEL

United States District Court

 

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 5 of 6
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

6

Case No. C 05-5039 JF (PVT)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS OF SEIU LOCAL 535 WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND

(JFLC2)

This Order has been served upon the following persons:

Plaintiff pro se:

Evagelia Lisa Vorgias

3378 Cropley Avenue

San Jose, CA 95132

Counsel for State Defendants:

Michael John von Loewenfeldt

Kerr & Wagstaffe LLP

100 Spear Street, Suite 1800

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Lawrence C. Yee

Colin Wong

State Bar of California

Office of General Counsel

180 Howard Street

San Francisco, CA 94105-1639 

Counsel for SEIU:

Stewart Weinberg

Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld

A Professional Corporation

1001 Marina Village Parkway

Suite 200

Alameda, CA 94501-1091

Case 5:05-cv-05039-JF Document 31 Filed 11/02/06 Page 6 of 6