Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00001/USCOURTS-cand-3_05-cv-00001-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 790
Nature of Suit: Other Labor Litigation
Cause of Action: 28:1343 Violation of Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THE UNITED SCREENERS ASSOCIATION

LOCAL ONE; WINSTON ARVER;

STEVENSON FONG; RALY FERNANDEZ;

NATHANIEL MONTEVIRGEN; RICHARD

HERMANSON; JEFF MICHAELSON; JOEL

BALDERAMA; ERIC LATOSA and DOES 1-

10,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO;

SAN FRANCISCO AIRPORT

COMMISSION; JOHN L. MARTIN, in his

official capacity as Director of the San Francisco

International Airport; COVENANT AVIATION

SECURITY, LLC; GERRY BERRY, in his

official capacity as President of Covenant Aviation

Security LLC

Defendant.

 /

No. C 05-00001 JSW

ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’

MOTIONS TO DISMISS

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of motions to dismiss Plaintiffs’ First

Amended Complaint (“FAC”) filed by (1) Defendant Covenant Aviation Security, LLC (“Covenant”)

and (2) the City and County of San Francisco (“City”), the San Francisco Airport Commission

(“Commission”), and John L. Martin (“Mr. Martin”) (collectively “City Defendants”).

Covenant moves to dismiss Plaintiffs’ third cause of action for breach of contract in part, and

moves to dismiss, in full, the fourth cause of action for wrongful termination, the fifth cause of action for

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 1 of 9
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

1 At the hearing Plaintiffs conceded this claim should be dismissed. Accordingly, Covenant’s

motion is GRANTED as to this cause of action without leave to amend.

2 Covenant also moved to dismiss Plaintiff Winston Arver’s (“Arver”) seventh cause of action. 

In the alternative, Covenant moved for a for a more definite statement on this claim which sought relief for

“disparate, discriminatory, and retaliatory action”. In response to Covenant’s motion, Arver agreed to withdraw

claims based on violations of Title VII and California Labor Code section 132a and also agreed to provide a more

definite statement. Accordingly, Covenant’s motion is GRANTED as to the seventh cause of action, but with

leave to amend.

2

a violation of California Labor Code Section 11221, and the sixth cause of action for “fraudulent

removal of employee documents.”2 The City Defendants move to dismiss the FAC on the ground that

Plaintiffs do not have standing to pursue the claims against the City Defendants and, in addition, assert

that those claims are not ripe for decision.

Having considered the parties’ pleadings, relevant legal authority, the record in this case and

having had the benefit of oral argument, the Court GRANTS the motions. The Court, however,

dismisses the First Amended Complaint without prejudice to Plaintiffs filing a second amended

complaint in accordance with the terms of this Order.

II. FACTUAL SUMMARY

In February 2000, the Commission adopted Resolution No. 00-0049 entitled “Resolution

Approving Use of Labor Peace/Card Check Rule and Model Card Check Agreement” (FAC, Ex.

B.) For ease of reference the Court shall refer to the three documents encompassed by that resolution 

- resolution, rule and agreement - as the “Card Check Resolution”. In brief, the Card Check

Resolution enables a labor organization to become the recognized representative for a group of

employees through a mechanism that is separate from election procedures established by the National

Labor Relations Act. (Id.)

Covenant provides passenger and baggage security screening at the San Francisco

International Airport (“SFO”), pursuant to a contract with the Department of Homeland Security. 

(FAC, ¶ 25.) It is not disputed that Covenant has entered into a “Covered Contract” as that term is

defined in the Card Check Resolution. 

Individual Plaintiffs, Arver, Stevenson Fong (“Fong”), Raly Fernandez (“Fernandez”),

Nathaniel Montevirgen (“Montevirgen”), Richard Hermanson (“Hermanson”), Joel Balderama

(“Balderama”), Eric Latosa (“Latosa”), and Jeff Michaelson (“Michaelson”) are former or current

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 2 of 9
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

employees of Covenant. (See Caption to FAC, ¶¶ 58-65.) Michaelson also is President and Legal

Affairs Chair of Local One. (See generally FAC.)

Local One is a labor union that wants to be the recognized bargaining agent for Covenant

employees. (See, e.g., id., ¶ 82.) It has, however, had to compete with Service Employees

International Union Local 790 (“SEIU Local 790”) in its efforts. Before this suit was filed, SEIU

Local 790 was the recognized bargaining agent for Covenant employees. Michaelson and Local One,

however, filed a charge of unfair labor practices with the National Labor Relations Board (“NLRB”),

which resulted in a settlement among Covenant, Local One and SEIU. As a result of that settlement

Covenant was required to withdraw its recognition of SEIU Local 790 as the recognized bargaining

agent for its employees and the Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) between Covenant and

SEIU was rescinded. (Id., ¶¶ 34, 44-46, 65.) Local One was also given the right to call a secret

ballot election on the question of whether Covenant employees wanted it as their bargaining

representative. 

On May 10, 2005, a secret ballot election was held in which Covenant employees rejected

Local One as their representative. 

III. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standards Applicable to Motions to Dismiss.

A motion to dismiss is proper under Rule 12(b)(6) where the pleadings fail to state a claim

upon which relief can be granted. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). A motion to dismiss should not be

granted unless it appears beyond a doubt that a plaintiff can show no set of facts supporting his or her

claim. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); see also De La Cruz v. Tormey, 582 F.2d

45, 48 (9th Cir. 1978). In ruling on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the complaint is construed in the light

most favorable to the non-moving party and all material allegations in the complaint are taken to be

true. Sanders v. Kennedy, 794 F.2d 478, 481 (9th Cir. 1986). The court, however, is not required

to accept legal conclusions cast in the form of factual allegations if those conclusions cannot reasonably

be drawn from the facts alleged. Cleggy v. Cult Awareness Network, 18 F.3d 752, 754-55 (9th

Cir. 1994) (citing Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)).

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 3 of 9
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 There is no suggestion that any of the other individual plaintiffs are asserting this claim.

4

 As a general rule, “a district court may not consider any material beyond the pleadings in ruling

on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion.” Branch v. Tunnell, 14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir. 1994), overruled on

other grounds, Galbraith v. County of Santa Clara, 307 F.3d 1119 (9th Cir. 2002) (citation

omitted). A district court may consider documents attached to a plaintiff’s complaint without

converting a motion to dismiss into a motion for summary judgment. Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v.

Richmond & Feiner Co., Inc., 806 F.2d 1542, 1555 n.19 (9th Cir. 1989). 

Unlike a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, in moving to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) a party can “attack

the substance of a complaint’s jurisdictional allegations despite their formal sufficiency, and in so doing

rely on affidavits or any other evidence properly before the court.” St. Clair v. City of Chico, 880

F.2d 199, 201 (9th Cir. 1989). Neither the City Defendants nor Covenant has submitted any

evidence in support of their motions, and their arguments are based solely upon the allegations in and

attachments to the FAC.

B. Breach of Contract 

In support of this cause of action, Plaintiffs allege that Covenant orally promised On Screen

Alarm Resolution Operators (“OSARP operators”) additional compensation in exchange for engaging

in additional training and taking on additional responsibilities. Plaintiffs also claim that Covenant made

a written promise to pay baggage handlers a wage of $14.00 per hour. (FAC, ¶¶ 51-57, Exs. A, NQ.) 

1. OSARP Pay Increase.

Covenant moves to dismiss the breach of contract cause of action relating to the OSARP pay

increase as to all Plaintiffs except Fong and Latosa.3 Covenant asserts that Local One does not have

standing to bring this claim on behalf of all Covenant employees. In order to have standing, an

association must demonstrate that: “(a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own

right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization’s purpose; and (c) neither the

claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.” 

Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Commission, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977).

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 4 of 9
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 4 Plaintiffs request leave to exclude any claim for monetary damages by Local One in an

amended complaint. That request is GRANTED. 

5

It is undisputed that the FAC does not allege that any OSARP operators are members of

Local One; yet to establish associational standing, Local One must have at least one member who has

standing to sue in his or her own right on this claim. Hunt, 432 U.S. at 343. This is a matter that may

be cured by amendment and is thus not fatal to Local One’s standing to bring this action. However, it

is also undisputed that Local One is not the recognized bargaining agent for Covenant employees. 

Thus, the Court concludes that Local One cannot claim to be the associational representative for all

Covenant employees and would not have standing to assert claims on their behalf. Rather, Local One

may only assert claims on behalf of its members. See United Food & Commercial Workers v.

Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 556 n.6 (1996). 

The Court further concludes that there are sufficient facts alleged to show that this cause of

action is germane to Local One’s purpose, i.e. protecting the interests of its members. Setting aside

the propriety of the relief sought, Local One does seek prospective relief in the form of a permanent

“instatement” of the alleged rate increase. (FAC, ¶ 88 and Prayer ¶¶ G, H.) Accordingly, it has

alleged sufficient facts to satisfy the third prong of the Hunt test. See, e.g., United Union of Roofers,

Waterproofers, and Allied Trades No. 40 v. Insurance Corp. of America, 919 F.2d 1398, 1400

(9th Cir. 1990) (noting that claim for monetary relief on behalf of individual members “run[s] afoul of

the third prong of the Hunt test, but that claim for prospective relief will not.); cf. Local 1035, Int’l

Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Pepsi Cola Allied Bottlers, Inc., 83 F. Supp. 2d 301, 305 (D. Conn.

1999) (denying motion to dismiss for lack of associational standing concluding that in prayer for relief

as to cause of action at issue, plaintiff sought prospective relief and not just money damages).4

2. Breach of Contract - Baggage Handler Pay Rate.

Covenant moves to dismiss the breach of contract claim relating to the alleged offer to pay

baggage handlers $14.00 per hour on the ground that it did not make the offer and cannot be bound

by an offer made by a third party. As a preliminary matter, the Court notes that the only individual

plaintiff to which this claim might possibly apply is Plaintiff Balderama, but Plaintiffs have not specified

whether Balderama was damaged as a result of Covenant’s alleged breach. In amending their

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 5 of 9
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

6

complaint, Plaintiffs are directed to make clear which individual plaintiffs are asserting this claim, if any. 

To the extent Local One seeks to assert this claim on behalf of all Covenant employees, for the

reasons set forth above with respect the OSARP pay increase, the Court does not find Local One

would have standing to pursue this claim for anyone other than its members.

Assuming Plaintiff Balderama is asserting this claim, the facts alleged, while admittedly minimal,

are sufficient to plead a claim for breach of contract. See Reagan Roofing Co. v. Superior Court,

24 Cal. App. 4th 425, 434-435 (1992) (elements of breach of contract include existence of contract,

performance by plaintiff, defendant’s breach and resultant damages). In reaching this conclusion, the

Court notes that Exhibit A to the FAC does not clearly establish that Covenant did not make the offer

in question. Exhibit A therefore does not contradict Plaintiffs’ allegations, which this Court must

accept as true in ruling on the motion. Sanders, 794 F.2d at 481. 

3. Conclusion regarding breach of contract.

For the reasons set forth above, the breach of contract claims are dismissed with leave to

amend. In their amended complaint, however, Plaintiffs should separate the claims for breach of

contract and clearly identify the individual plaintiffs asserting the claims. If Local One chooses to

maintain these causes of action on behalf of its members, the Court leaves for another day whether the

prospective relief it seeks is appropriate.

C. Wrongful Termination.

In asserting this claim, Hernandez, Fong, and Montevirgen allege they were unlawfully

terminated because, although the CBA with SEIU Local 790 was rescinded, Covenant “assured

employees that the company would continue to treat employees fairly in accordance with Fair Labor

Standards while also adhering to the terms and conditions in the collective bargaining agreement ... ,”

which they contains a provision stating that “[t]he Employer may not discipline or discharge an

employee without just cause.” (Id., Ex. K at p. 6.) Covenant’s employee handbook, however,

contains a provision which provides that Covenant employees are “employees at will”, and that “[n]o

statements to the contrary, written or oral, made either before or during an individual’s employment

can change this.” (Id., Ex. R at p. 6 (emphasis added).) Plaintiffs also claim that Covenant failed to

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 6 of 9
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

5 The Court’s conclusion as to Local One’s standing to assert breach of contract claims on

behalf of all covenant employees, as opposed to its members, applies to the Court’s conclusion on this claim as

well.

7

follow its own “Progressive Discipline” procedure set forth in the employee handbook. (Id., ¶ 64, Ex.

R at 22.) 

Covenant moves to dismiss this claim on the grounds that: (a) the individual plaintiffs have not

alleged termination in violation of public policy; and (b) that if the individual plaintiffs are actually

pleading breach of an implied contract, they were at will employees and, thus, could be terminated at

any time without or without cause. Plaintiffs attached Covenant’s employee handbook to the FAC,

and that document is indeed replete with references to “at will” employment. (FAC, Ex. R.) Plaintiffs

have not, however, necessarily pleaded themselves out of a cause of action by attaching the document. 

Taking the allegations in the light most favorably to Plaintiffs, they allege that Covenant failed to follow

its own procedures before terminating their employment, and allege Covenant breached an oral

agreement to adhere to the terms of the rescinded CBA. As such, the Court cannot say beyond a

doubt that these plaintiffs can show no set of facts supporting their claims. Conley, 355 U.S. at 45-

46.

Because the Court has already granted leave to amend the third cause of action, however, the

Court grants Covenant’s motion and dismisses this claim with leave to amend.

D. Fraudulent Removal of Employee Documents.5

Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action for “fraudulent removal of documents” relates closely to

Plaintiffs’ breach of contract claim regarding the OSARP pay increase. Plaintiffs claim that they

reviewed their personnel files, saw notices relating to the pay increase, but when they reviewed their

personnel files at a later date, the notices had been removed. (Id., ¶¶ 53, 57, 94.) Covenant’s motion

to dismiss is granted because the facts as alleged do not state a claim for fraud. Reading the facts in

the light most favorable to the Plaintiffs, the Court cannot say beyond a doubt that there are no facts on

which a fraud claim might be based. Accordingly, this claim is dismissed with leave to amend.

E. Claims Against the City Defendants.

Plaintiffs assert two causes of action against the City Defendants: (1) a violation of 42 U.S.C.

§ 1983; and (2) an assertion that the Card Check Resolution violates the Supremacy Clause of the

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 7 of 9
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

8

United States Constitution. The factual allegations supporting these claims are quite muddled, which

Plaintiffs acknowledged at the hearing on this matter. The Court’s understanding of Plaintiffs’

allegations is that enactment of the Card Check Resolution violates their civil rights because it violates

the National Labor Relations Act and that the City Defendants are using the Card Check Rule in a

fashion that discriminates between unions, in contravention of its terms and purpose. (See FAC, ¶¶

40-43, 75-83). 

The lack of clarity in the factual allegations has made it difficult for the Court to determine

whether Plaintiffs do in fact lack standing to pursue the asserted claims against the city and to

determine whether the alleged claims are ripe for review. With that preface, taking the facts alleged in

the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, there are facts alleged that may give rise to injuries that are

traceable to the enactment and application of the Card Check Resolution. See San Diego County

Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F.3d 1121, 1126 (9th Cir. 1996) (citing Lujan v. Defenders of

Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560-561 (1992)) (to establish standing plaintiffs demonstrate, inter alia, that

they an “injury-in-fact” and a causal connection between their injury and the conduct about which they

complaint). Similarly, there are factual allegations that suggest at least some of Plaintiffs complaints

about the City Defendants’ conduct are ripe for review. 

Again, because of the overall lack of clarity of Plaintiffs’ FAC, and because the Court is

granting Plaintiffs leave to amend the claims against Covenant, the Court grants the City Defendants’

motion to dismiss with leave to amend. If Plaintiffs maintain the existing claims against the City

Defendants, or if they add new claims, the Court’s ruling is without prejudice to the City Defendants

renewing their standing and ripeness challenges in a subsequent responsive pleading.

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 8 of 9
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

9

IV. CONCLUSION 

 For the foregoing reasons, Covenant’s motion to dismiss and the City Defendants’ motion to

dismiss are granted, with leave to amend as set forth herein. The Court strongly encourages the

parties to meet and confer prior to the filing of a second amended complaint.

Plaintiffs are ORDERED to file their amended complaint by no later than June 13, 2005. 

Defendants shall file their responsive pleadings by no later than July 5, 2005. 

The case management conference set for June 17, 2005 is CONTINUED to July 15, 2005. 

If Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ second amended complaint, the parties should be prepared to

submit a case management conference statement that sets out a schedule in the event any such motions

to dismiss are denied. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 23, 2005 /s/ Jeffrey S. White 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:05-cv-00001-JSW Document 41 Filed 05/23/05 Page 9 of 9