Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02705/USCOURTS-casd-3_18-cv-02705-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 740
Nature of Suit: Railway Labor Act
Cause of Action: 45:0151 Railway Labor Act (Definitions)

---

1

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ELLA MARIE BROWN,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 

MACHINISTS,

Defendant.

Case No.: 18cv2705-CAB-JLB

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

DISMISS [Doc. No. 2]

On October 26, 2018, Plaintiff Ella Marie Brown (“Plaintiff”) filed a First 

Amended Claim (“FAC”) in the San Diego Small Claims Court, Case No. 37-2018-

00009759-SC-SC-CTL. [Doc. No. 1-1.]1 On November 30, 2018, Defendant 

International Association of Machinists (“Defendant”) removed the FAC to this court on 

the grounds that it is preempted by the Railway Labor Act (“RLA”), 45 U.S.C. §151. 

[Doc. No. 1 at 2.] On December 6, 2018, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 

2.] On December 28, 2018, Plaintiff filed a response to the motion to dismiss. [Doc. No. 

6.] On January 3, 2019, Defendant filed a reply. [Doc. No. 7.] For the reasons set forth 

below, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED.

 

1

It appears this action was initially begun on February 27, 2018. [Doc. No. 6 at 43.]

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 1 of 4
2

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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

ALLEGATIONS OF COMPLAINT

Plaintiff is employed by United Airlines and is a member of Defendant union. 

Plaintiff alleges that Defendant owes her money “[b]ecause I have paid union dues and 

not once have I ever received from the Union When My Job was in jeopardy of lost.” 

[sic] [Doc. No. 1-1 at 2, ¶3(a).] Plaintiff seeks damages in the form of the union dues 

she has paid since June of 2005. [Doc. No. 1-1 at 2, ¶¶3(b), 3(c).] 

DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) permits a party to raise by motion the 

defense that the complaint “fail[s] to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”—

generally referred to as a motion to dismiss. The Court evaluates whether a complaint 

states a cognizable legal theory and sufficient facts in light of Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 8(a)(2), which requires a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that 

the pleader is entitled to relief.” Although Rule 8 “does not require ‘detailed factual 

allegations,’ . . . it [does] demand . . . more than an unadorned, the defendant-unlawfullyharmed-me accusation.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. 

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)).

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual 

matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id.

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A claim is facially 

plausible when the collective facts pled “allow . . . the court to draw the reasonable 

inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. There must be 

“more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. Facts “‘merely 

consistent with’ a defendant’s liability” fall short of a plausible entitlement to relief. Id. 

(quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). The Court need not accept as true “legal 

conclusions” contained in the complaint, id., or other “allegations that are merely 

conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or unreasonable inferences,” Daniels-Hall v. 

Nat’l Educ. Ass’n, 629 F.3d 992, 998 (9th Cir. 2010).

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 2 of 4
3

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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

B. Analysis.

Defendant moves to dismiss the FAC on the following grounds: (1) under the 

RLA, the claim is barred by the six-month statute of limitations; (2) Plaintiff fails to state 

a claim for breach of a collective bargaining agreement; (3) Plaintiff fails to allege a 

breach of the duty of fair representation; (4) Plaintiff has not alleged that she attempted to 

exhaust any grievance procedure; (5) the remedy Plaintiff seeks (reimbursement of union 

dues) is not a remedy which is authorized in duty of fair representation cases; and (6) 

Plaintiff fails to state a claim regarding the obligation to pay dues because the RLA 

specifically authorizes a union security arrangement which requires that employees pay 

dues.

In her opposition, Plaintiff first asks that the matter be remanded to Small Claims 

Court. [Doc. No. 6 at 1, 2.] However, this matter was properly removed to this Court 

because it alleges a breach of the duty of fair representation by the Defendant union, 

which is governed by the RLA. See Smith v. United Airlines, 773 Fed. Appx. 720 (9th

Cir. 2016) (same employer and same union). Pratt v. United Airlines, 468 F.supp. 508 

(N.D. Cal. 1978)(same employer and same union).

Second, Plaintiff submits documents regarding a settlement offer made by 

Plaintiff, as well as her attempts to find counsel. [Doc. No. 6 at 7 – 18.] Such documents 

are irrelevant to a motion to dismiss.

Plaintiff also submits documents showing that she seeks reimbursement of dues 

paid from 2005 to the present. [Doc. No. 6 at 26-27.] However, Plaintiff does not allege 

any specifics as to how Defendant breached the duty of fair representation or whether she 

exhausted administrative remedies. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171 (1967). Moreover, 

Plaintiff does not provide any authority for the proposition that she may seek 

reimbursement of dues as a remedy.

Next, Plaintiff submits documents regarding grievances filed in the last year. 

[Doc. No. 6 at 25-36.] However, this complaint was initially filed on February 27, 2018.

[Doc. No. 6 at 43.] Therefore, any subsequent claims are not part of this complaint. In 

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 3 of 4
4

18cv2705-CAB-JLB

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

addition, Plaintiff has submitted documents regarding a complaint she made to a United 

Airlines official. [Doc. No. 6 at 33.] This matter does not appear to be encompassed in 

the Small Claims complaint.

Finally, most of Plaintiff’s discussions focus on a 2013 grievance. [Doc. No. 6 at 

22-25.] However, any claims she may have regarding the handling of such grievance are 

long barred by the 6-month statute of limitations. See Del Costello v. International 

Brothers of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983); International Association of Machinists v. 

Aloha Airlines, 781 F.2d 1400 (9th Cir. 1986).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, the motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED 

WITH LEAVE TO AMEND. Plaintiff may file a Second Amended Complaint 

(“SAC”) which addresses the deficiencies noted in this order by February 25, 2019. If 

the SAC is not filed by February 25, 2019, the Clerk of the Court shall CLOSE the case 

without further court order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 25, 2019

Case 3:18-cv-02705-CAB-JLB Document 8 Filed 01/25/19 PageID.<pageID> Page 4 of 4