Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-03733-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Eric Edmundson
Defendant
Orville Meaux
Plaintiff
Northwest Airlines, Inc.
Defendant
Professional Flight Attendants Association
Defendant

Document Text:

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

ORVILLE MEAUX,

Plaintiff,

v.

NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.; ERIC

EDMUNDSON, individually and as an

employee of Northwest Airlines, Inc.;

PROFESSIONAL FLIGHT ATTENDANTS

ASSOCIATION; and DOES 1- 20,

Inclusive,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 05-3733 CW

ORDER GRANTING

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION

TO AMEND COMPLAINT

 Plaintiff Orville Meaux moves to amend his complaint. 

Defendant Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) opposes

the motion, arguing that Plaintiff's amendments would be futile.

Having considered all of the papers filed by the parties, the Court

grants Plaintiff's motion.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff brings this motion to amend his complaint to assert

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 1 of 7
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 2

additional allegations, clarifying the basis for his claim against

Defendant PFAA for breach of the duty of fair representation. New

allegations include: Defendant PFAA failed and refused to conduct a

reasonable and competent investigation or any investigations

whatsoever as to the actual facts of Plaintiff's demotion and

discharge; Defendant PFAA failed and refused to put forward any

evidence supporting Plaintiff during the grievance process;

Defendant PFAA failed and refused to interview critical witnesses

who would have corroborated Plaintiff's version of key events. 

In addition, the proposed amended complaint alleges claims

against Defendant Eric Edmundson for retaliation under California's

Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) and for wrongful termination

in violation of public policy based on FEHA. As explained in the

Court's July 6, 2006 order granting Defendant Edmundson's motion to

dismiss, however, any claims against Defendant Edmundson in

Plaintiff's proposed amended complaint are dismissed with

prejudice. 

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides that leave of

the court allowing a party to amend its pleading "shall be freely

given when justice so requires." Leave to amend lies within the

sound discretion of the trial court, which discretion "must be

guided by the underlying purpose of Rule 15 to facilitate decision

on the merits, rather than on the pleadings or technicalities." 

United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (citations

omitted). Thus, Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to

pleadings should be applied with "extreme liberality." Id.; DCD

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 2 of 7
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

Programs, Ltd. v. Leighton, 833 F.2d 183, 186 (9th Cir. 1987).

DISCUSSION

The Supreme Court has identified four factors relevant to

whether a motion for leave to amend should be denied: undue delay,

bad faith or dilatory motive, futility of amendment, and prejudice

to the opposing party. Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962). 

The Ninth Circuit holds that these factors are not of equal weight;

specifically, delay alone is insufficient ground for denying leave

to amend. Webb, 655 F.2d at 980. But, as Defendant PFAA notes,

"Futility of amendment can, by itself, justify the denial of a

motion for leave to amend." Bonin v. Calderon, 59 F.3d 815, 845

(9th Cir. 1995); see also Newland v. Dalton, 81 F.3d 904, 907 (9th

Cir. 1996) ("district courts need not accommodate futile

amendments"). The Ninth Circuit instructs that "a proposed

amendment is futile only if no set of facts can be proved under the

amendment to the pleadings that would constitute a valid and

sufficient claim or defense." Miller v. Rykoff-Sexton, Inc., 845

F.2d 209, 214 (9th Cir. 1988); see also SAES Getters S.p.A. v.

Aeronex, Inc., 219 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1086 (S.D. Cal. 2002) ("an

amendment is 'futile' only if it would clearly be subject to

dismissal"). 

Defendant PFAA contends that Plaintiff's proposed amendments

concerning his claim for breach of the duty of fair representation

are futile for four reasons.

First, Defendant PFAA argues that the Court lacks subject

matter jurisdiction over the amended claim for breach of the duty

of fair representation because Plaintiff failed to exhaust

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 3 of 7
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

mandatory contractual remedies and thus his claim is preempted

under the Railway Labor Act, 45 U.S.C. § 151. As Plaintiff notes,

however, the Supreme Court has held that a suit against a union for

breach of its duty of fair representation is "not subject to the

ordinary rule that administrative remedies should be exhausted

before resort to the courts." Czosek v. O'Mara, 397 U.S. 25, 27

(1970) (noting that the claim against a union for breach of its

duty of fair representation is "a discrete claim quite apart from

the right of individual employees expressly extended to them under

the Railway Labor Act to pursue their employer before the

Adjustment Board"). Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated that

"where the courts are called upon to fulfill their role as the

primary guardians of the duty of fair representation, complaints

should be construed to avoid dismissals and the plaintiff at the

very least should be given the opportunity to file supplemental

pleadings unless it appears beyond doubt that he cannot state a

good cause of action." Id. (inner quotations omitted). Defendant

PFAA's first reason for why Plaintiff's amendments would be futile

fails.

Second, Defendant PFAA argues that the amended breach of the

duty of fair representation claim is futile because it is timebarred. But a claim can be dismissed as time-barred only where it

is evident on the face of the complaint that the claim is

necessarily barred. See, e.g., Mertens v. Hewitt Associates, 948

F.2d 607, 613 (9th Cir. 1991), aff'd, 508 U.S. 248 (1993)

(dismissing "on statute of limitations grounds is improper where

the complaint merely shows that the action may have been barred")

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 4 of 7
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

(inner quotation omitted). Here, it is not clear on the face of

the complaint that Plaintiff's claim for breach of the duty of fair

representation is time-barred. Defendant PFAA's exhibits, which

support its argument that Plaintiff's claim is time-barred, were

not considered by the Court; such exhibits are properly considered

when included with summary judgment pleadings, not when included

with an opposition to a motion to amend a complaint. Defendant

PFAA's second argument that Plaintiff's amendments would be futile

also fails.

Third, Defendant PFAA argues that the amended claim is futile

because the amended complaint omits any cause of action claiming

that Defendant Northwest Airlines, Inc. breached the collective

bargaining agreement. According to Defendant PFAA, to bring a

claim against it for breach of the duty of fair representation,

Plaintiff must also bring a breach of contract claim against his

former employer, Defendant Northwest. Defendant PFAA is incorrect. 

Defendant PFAA cites Del Costello v. International Broth. of

Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (1983). Although the Supreme Court in Del

Costello recognized that a plaintiff's claim against a union and

his former employer are "inextricably interdependent," the Court

also recognized that an "employee may, if he chooses, sue one

defendant and not the other." 462 U.S. at 164-65. Defendant

PFAA's third argument fails.

Fourth, Defendant PFAA argues that the amended claim for

breach of the duty of fair representation is futile because it

fails to plead facts sufficient to state a claim. Like Defendant

PFAA's other arguments, this argument fails. The Ninth Circuit

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 5 of 7
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

holds that a "union breaches its duty of fair representation if it

processes a member's grievance in an arbitrary or perfunctory

manner. To comply with its duty, a union must conduct some minimal

investigation of grievances brought to its attention." Tenorio v.

NLRB, 680 F.2d 598, 601 (9th Cir. 1982). Plaintiff alleges facts

in his amended complaint that, if proved, would constitute a valid

and sufficient claim. For example, he alleges that Defendant PFAA

failed and refused to investigate the facts relating to his

demotion and discharge, failed and refused to obtain his entire

personnel file, failed and refused to interview key witnesses that

would have corroborated his version of events, and processed his

grievance in a perfunctory fashion. 

Plaintiff's amended claim for breach of the duty of fair

representation is not clearly subject to dismissal; it is not

futile. Nor is it brought in bad faith with undue delay. 

Defendant PFAA does not argue prejudice. DCD Programs, 833 F.2d at

186 (party opposing the motion bears the burden of showing

prejudice). Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff's motion for

leave to amend his complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion

To Amend Complaint (Docket No. 48). Plaintiff must file his

proposed amended complaint within ten days of this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 7/17/06 

CLAUDIA WILKEN

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 6 of 7
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 7

Case 4:05-cv-03733-CW Document 61 Filed 07/17/06 Page 7 of 7