Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00841/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00841-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Genevieve Fidalgo
Plaintiff
Javier Garcia
Plaintiff
Jim Hicks
Plaintiff
Lupe Juarez
Plaintiff
National Association of Business Representatives
Plaintiff
Ralph Ramirez
Plaintiff
Jack Smith
Plaintiff
Teamsters Local 948
Defendant

Document Text:

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS

REPRESENTATIVES; JIM HICKS;

GENEVIEVE FIDALGO; JAVIER

GARCIA; LUPE JUAREZ; RALPH

RAMIREZ and JACK SMITH,

Plaintiffs,

v.

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 948,

Defendant.

________________________________

TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION 948,

Plaintiff,

v.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF BUSINESS

REPRESENTATIVES,

Defendants.

 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:06-cv–841 OWW DLB

CONSOLIDATED WITH

1:06-cv-1492 OWW DLB

SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER 

AND ORDER CONSOLIDATING

ACTIONS 

Discovery Cut-Off: 7/31/07

Non-Dispositive Motion

Filing Deadline: 8/15/07

Dispositive Motion Filing

Deadline: 8/31/07

Settlement Conference Date:

8/7/07 10:00 Ctrm. 9

Pre-Trial Conference

Date: 11/5/07 11:00 Ctrm. 3 

Trial Date: 1/15/08 9:00

Ctrm. 3 (JT-8 days)

I. Date of Scheduling Conference.

February 23, 2007.

II. Appearances Of Counsel.

Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld by Roberta Perkins, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Plaintiffs.

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 1 of 12
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

 Courtney Law Offices by Sylvia Bufanda Courtney, Esq.,

appeared on behalf of Defendant National Association of Business

Representatives.

III. Consolidation.

1. The parties have stipulated that these cases may be

consolidated for all purposes under the first filed case number,

which is 1:06-cv-0841 OWW DLB. Accordingly, these cases are

consolidated for all purposes, including trial. The case number

1:06-cv-1492 OWW DLB, shall be administratively closed and all

pleadings in that case shall be filed under case number 1:06-cv0841 OWW DLB. 

III. Summary of Pleadings. 

1. On July 3, 2006, Plaintiff National Association of

Business Representatives (NABR) filed a Complaint to Compel

Arbitration on behalf of Plaintiff NABR based on Section 301 of

the National Labor Relations Act, as amended (NLRA), 29 U.S.C.

Section 185(a) and for violation of the Labor Management

Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq., on

behalf of six union members who were discharged from their

positions as business agents for Defendant Teamsters Local Union

948 on or about January 3, 2006. The matter was filed in the

Fresno Division of this Court, and assigned Case No. 1:06-cv-0841

OWW DLB. The initial complaint was not served, and a First

Amended Complaint was filed on October 3, 2006.

2. On July 10, 2006, Teamsters Local Union #948

(hereinafter “Local 948") filed a Complaint for Declaratory

Relief and Injunction against National Association of Business

Representatives (hereinafter “NABR” or “Defendant”) requesting

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 2 of 12
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

the Court to grant declaratory relief and an injunction until the

rights of the parties pursuant to their current collective

bargaining agreement are clarified. The case was filed in the

Sacramento Division of this Court and assigned Case No. 2:06-cv01524 WBS GGH, and later transferred to the Fresno Division and

assigned Case No. 1:06-cv-1492 OWW DLB. The dispute in both

cases arises from an election of new officers of Local 948 in

fall 2005, after which six business agents employed by Local 948

were terminated. After their terminations on or about January 3,

2006, the business agents sought to invoke the grievance

procedure under the collective bargaining agreement which states,

in pertinent part, as follows:

If a grievance is referred to Step 3, the two parties

shall request a State Mediator mutually agreeable to

both parties to hear the grievance. The decision of

the State Mediator shall be final and binding on the

Employee and both parties. Any expenses incurred by

the State Mediator shall be split by both parties

except that each party shall bear the expense of

preparing and presenting its own case. 

(NABR Complaint, Exhibit A.)

3. Local 948 contends that the language is unenforceable

because state mediators cannot issue final and binding decisions,

therefore, is it not obligated to process the discharges through

the grievance procedure. Accordingly, it seeks clarification of

the rights and obligations of the parties in this action for

Declaratory Relief, and for the Court to enjoin any further

proceedings between the parties until such time as their rights

are declared.

4. NABR answered Local 948's Complaint on August 10, 2006,

contending that the language appearing in Step 3 of the grievance

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 3 of 12
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

procedure contained a typographical error in that the parties had

agreed to a federal, rather than a state mediator; in addition,

that the language permitted the parties to select a mediator who

could fashion an appropriate hearing procedure and make a

recommendation which the parties would accept as “final and

binding,” and thus Step 3 is enforceable by mutual agreement of

the parties in their negotiations resulting in the contract

language. NABR further contends that past practice of Local 948

supports its view and that grievances have been previously

resolved through the use of the Step 3 procedure, and that the

disputed language and procedure is currently in effect in many

collective bargaining agreements covering Local 948's members in

the food processing industry. Local 948 contends that the

mediation service will not participate in a final and binding

procedure because they are mediators and not arbitrators.

5. On October 3, 2006, with its First Amended Complaint in

Case No. 1:06-cv-0841 OWW DLB, NABR also filed a Notice of

Related Case in both actions. On October 25, 2006, following

transfer of Local 948's action to the Fresno Division, a new case

number was assigned (No. 1:06-cv-1492 OWW DLB). The parties

stipulated and the court allowed a continuance of the joint

scheduling conference until December 13, 2006, to allow Local 948

time to respond to NABR’s First Amended Complaint. The Answer

was filed on December 21, 2007, and the parties stipulated to a

continuance of the scheduling conference until February 2, 2007.

IV. Orders Re Amendments To Pleadings.

1. The parties do not anticipate filing any amendments to

the pleadings at this time. 

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 4 of 12
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

V. Factual Summary.

A. Admitted Facts Which Are Deemed Proven Without Further

Proceedings. 

1. Plaintiff, National Association of Business

Representatives, is a Union doing business in association form.

2. Jim Hicks, Genevieve Fidalgo, Javier Garcia, Lupe

Juarez, Ralph Ramirez, and Jack Smith are individuals and all

residents of the Eastern District of California, Fresno Division.

3. Teamsters Local Union 948 is a business

association doing business as a union.

4. Teamsters Local Union 948 is recognized as a union

by the NLRB and is formerly a party to a collective bargaining

agreement with the National Association of Business

Representatives. The Teamsters Local 948 has purported to

withdraw recognition and that matter is currently pending before

the NLRB.

5. The Collective Bargaining Agreement contains a

grievance procedure, part of which is disputed at Step 3, whether

Local 948 is obligated to submit grievances over discharge of six

business agents who are Plaintiffs in this case to any kind of

hearing before a Federal mediator. 

6. The terminations of six business agent Plaintiffs

from their employment were due to their involvement in the fall

of 2005 election in which they campaigned against members who

were elected. 

B. Contested Facts.

1. Whether Step 3 of any grievance procedure under

the Collective Bargaining Agreement requires Local 948 to submit

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 5 of 12
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

grievances over the discharge of the six business agent

Plaintiffs to any kind of hearing before a Federal mediator. 

2. Plaintiff NABR contends such a procedure has been

used before, is used in contracts in the industry, and applies

when parties agree to be bound in advance by the decision or

recommendation of a mediator. 

3. Local 948 contends that since Federal mediators

may not act as arbitrators, Step 3 is unenforceable.

4. Local 948 disputes whether the six business agent

Plaintiffs were fired because of the investigation of election

practices. 

5. Local 948 contends that its actions in discharging

Plaintiff business agents do not constitute violations of the

Labor Management Relations Act. 

6. Local 948 contends Plaintiffs have failed to

exhaust internal union remedies. 

VI. Legal Issues.

A. Uncontested.

1. Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 29

U.S.C. § 185(a). Jurisdiction also exists under the National

Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411 et seq.

2. Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

B. Contested. 

1. All remaining legal issues are contested.

VII. Consent to Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction.

1. The parties have not consented to transfer the 

case to the Magistrate Judge for all purposes, including trial.

///

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 6 of 12
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

7

VIII. Corporate Identification Statement.

1. Any nongovernmental corporate party to any action in

this court shall file a statement identifying all its parent

corporations and listing any entity that owns 10% or more of the

party's equity securities. A party shall file the statement with

its initial pleading filed in this court and shall supplement the

statement within a reasonable time of any change in the

information. 

IX. Discovery Plan and Cut-Off Date.

1. Plaintiff and Defendant agree to the following

discovery plan which will be focused on the bargaining history

concerning the contract language in dispute, the application of

identical or similar language in collective bargaining agreements

in force in the industry, and the communications between the

parties concerning processing of the grievances following the

election of new Local 948 officers. Further, there will be

discovery regarding the reasons for the termination of the

Plaintiffs and damages if any.

a. Local 948 will take depositions of Plaintiffs,

NABR officers and former officers Sharon Mosley, James Long and

John Hailstone no later than April 15, 2007;

b. NABR will take depositions of Local 948 officers

Sam Martinez and Frank Dickson and Teamsters International

representative Ron Rocha no later than April 15, 2007;

c. The parties will exchange any nonprivileged

documents informally upon request following initial disclosures.

d. The parties may depose witness(es) having

knowledge of how the Federal Mediation and Conciliation Service

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 7 of 12
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

(FMCS) and/or federal mediators selected under Teamsters Local

948 contracts in the food processing industry have applied the

disputed contract provision in the past. The parties will

attempt to complete this discovery no later than May 15, 2007.

e. The parties may take discovery regarding the

operation of the FMCS/SMCS regarding rendering decisions.

2. The parties are ordered to complete all discovery on

or before July 31, 2007.

3. The parties are directed to disclose all expert

witnesses, in writing, on or before May 1, 2007. Any

supplemental or rebuttal expert disclosures will be made on or

before June 1, 2007. The parties will comply with the provisions

of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) regarding their

expert designations. Local Rule 16-240(a) notwithstanding, the

written designation of experts shall be made pursuant to F. R.

Civ. P. Rule 26(a)(2), (A) and (B) and shall include all

information required thereunder. Failure to designate experts in

compliance with this order may result in the Court excluding the

testimony or other evidence offered through such experts that are

not disclosed pursuant to this order.

4. The provisions of F. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) shall 

apply to all discovery relating to experts and their opinions. 

Experts may be fully prepared to be examined on all subjects and

opinions included in the designation. Failure to comply will

result in the imposition of sanctions. 

X. Pre-Trial Motion Schedule.

1. All Non-Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions, including any

discovery motions, will be filed on or before August 15, 2007,

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 8 of 12
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

and heard on September 21, 2007, at 9:00 a.m. before Magistrate

Judge Dennis L. Beck in Courtroom 9. 

2. In scheduling such motions, the Magistrate

Judge may grant applications for an order shortening time

pursuant to Local Rule 142(d). However, if counsel does not

obtain an order shortening time, the notice of motion must comply

with Local Rule 251. 

3. All Dispositive Pre-Trial Motions are to be

filed no later than August 31, 2007, and will be heard on October

1, 2007, at 10:00 a.m. before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger,

United States District Judge, in Courtroom 3, 7th Floor. In

scheduling such motions, counsel shall comply with Local Rule

230. 

XI. Pre-Trial Conference Date.

1. November 5, 2007, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom 3, 7th

Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United States

District Judge. 

2. The parties are ordered to file a Joint PreTrial Statement pursuant to Local Rule 281(a)(2). 

3. Counsel's attention is directed to Rules 281 

and 282 of the Local Rules of Practice for the Eastern District

of California, as to the obligations of counsel in preparing for

the pre-trial conference. The Court will insist upon strict

compliance with those rules.

XII. Trial Date.

1. January 15, 2008, at the hour of 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom

3, 7th Floor, before the Honorable Oliver W. Wanger, United

States District Judge. 

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 9 of 12
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

10

2. This is a jury trial.

3. Counsels' Estimate Of Trial Time:

a. 8 days.

4. Counsels' attention is directed to Local Rules

of Practice for the Eastern District of California, Rule 285. 

XIII. Settlement Conference.

1. A Settlement Conference is scheduled for August 7,

2007, at 10:00 a.m. in Courtroom 9 before the Honorable Dennis L.

Beck, United States Magistrate Judge. 

2. Unless otherwise permitted in advance by the

Court, the attorneys who will try the case shall appear at the

Settlement Conference with the parties and the person or persons

having full authority to negotiate and settle the case on any

terms at the conference. 

3. Permission for a party [not attorney] to attend

by telephone may be granted upon request, by letter, with a copy

to the other parties, if the party [not attorney] lives and works

outside the Eastern District of California, and attendance in

person would constitute a hardship. If telephone attendance is

allowed, the party must be immediately available throughout the

conference until excused regardless of time zone differences. 

Any other special arrangements desired in cases where settlement

authority rests with a governing body, shall also be proposed in

advance by letter copied to all other parties. 

4. Confidential Settlement Conference Statement. 

At least five (5) days prior to the Settlement Conference the

parties shall submit, directly to the Magistrate Judge's

chambers, a confidential settlement conference statement. The

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 10 of 12
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

11

statement should not be filed with the Clerk of the Court nor

served on any other party. Each statement shall be clearly

marked "confidential" with the date and time of the Settlement

Conference indicated prominently thereon. Counsel are urged to

request the return of their statements if settlement is not

achieved and if such a request is not made the Court will dispose

of the statement.

5. The Confidential Settlement Conference

Statement shall include the following: 

a. A brief statement of the facts of the 

case.

b. A brief statement of the claims and 

defenses, i.e., statutory or other grounds upon which the claims

are founded; a forthright evaluation of the parties' likelihood

of prevailing on the claims and defenses; and a description of

the major issues in dispute.

c. A summary of the proceedings to date.

d. An estimate of the cost and time to be

expended for further discovery, pre-trial and trial.

e. The relief sought.

f. The parties' position on settlement,

including present demands and offers and a history of past

settlement discussions, offers and demands. 

XIV. Request For Bifurcation, Appointment Of Special Master, 

Or Other Techniques To Shorten Trial. 

1. None. 

XV. Related Matters Pending.

1. There are no related matters.

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 11 of 12
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

12

XVI. Compliance With Federal Procedure.

1. The Court requires compliance with the Federal

Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice for the

Eastern District of California. To aid the court in the

efficient administration of this case, all counsel are directed

to familiarize themselves with the Federal Rules of Civil

Procedure and the Local Rules of Practice of the Eastern District

of California, and keep abreast of any amendments thereto.

XVII. Effect Of This Order.

1. The foregoing order represents the best

estimate of the court and counsel as to the agenda most suitable

to bring this case to resolution. The trial date reserved is

specifically reserved for this case. If the parties determine at

any time that the schedule outlined in this order cannot be met,

counsel are ordered to notify the court immediately of that fact

so that adjustments may be made, either by stipulation or by

subsequent scheduling conference. 

2. Stipulations extending the deadlines contained

herein will not be considered unless they are accompanied by

affidavits or declarations, and where appropriate attached

exhibits, which establish good cause for granting the relief

requested. 

3. Failure to comply with this order may result in

the imposition of sanctions. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 6, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00841-OWW -DLB Document 18 Filed 03/07/07 Page 12 of 12