Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06747/USCOURTS-cand-3_06-cv-06747-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Wendell S. Elam
Plaintiff
National Labor Relations Board Region #32
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

1

Docket No. 6.

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WENDELL S. ELAM,

 Plaintiff,

 v.

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD

REGION #32,

Defendant. /

No. C06-06747 MJJ

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION TO DISMISS

INTRODUCTION

Before the Court is Defendant National Labor Relations Board’s (“Defendant” or “the

Board”) Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).1 Pro se

Plaintiff Wendell S. Elam failed to file a timely opposition to the motion. On March 2, 2007, this

Court issued an Order to Show Cause why Plaintiff had failed to file an opposition or a statement of

non-opposition, and further ordered Plaintiff to file his opposition, if any, by March 12, 2007. On

March 14, 2007, Plaintiff filed an untimely opposition to Defendant’s motion, but failed to otherwise

respond the Court’s Order to Show Cause. In Plaintiff’s opposition he requests leave to amend. For

the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, DENIES Plaintiff’s

Motion for Leave to Amend, and VACATES the hearing set for March 27, 2007.

Case 3:06-cv-06747-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 1 of 5
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

The Board contends that Plaintiff has never effected proper service of the Petition, however the Board does not seek

dismissal on this ground.

2

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The current action arises from Plaintiff’s May 19, 2003 filing of an unfair labor practice

charge, NLRB Case No. 32-CB-5619-1, with the Board’s Region 32 Office in Oakland, California. 

(Declaration of Denise F. Meiners (“Meiners’ Decl.”) ¶ 3, Ex. A.) Plaintiff’s charge alleged that the

Office & Professional Employees International Union, Local 29 (“the Union”) violated Section

8(b)(1)(A) of the National Labor Relations Act (“NLRA”), 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(1)(A), because the

Union “failed in its duty to fairly represent Wendell Elam by requesting that the Employer [Kaiser

Permanente Health Plan] discipline him for various reasons.” (Id.) 

By letter dated July 31, 2003, the Board’s Regional Director for Region 32, on behalf of the

General Counsel, notified Plaintiff that, after carefully investigating the charge, the Regional

Director decided that further proceedings on this charge were unwarranted, and that he was refusing

to issue a complaint in the matter. (Id. at ¶ 4, Ex. B.) The Regional Director further advised

Plaintiff that he had the right to obtain review of the decision by filing an appeal with the General

Counsel of the Board in Washington, D.C. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file an appeal of the Regional

Director’s decision. 

Instead, on October 30, 2006, Plaintiff filed a Petition for Review in this Court seeking 

“review of the Order of the Board’s letter of determination refusing to issue a formal complaint

regarding NLRB # 32-CB-5619-1, dated July 31, 2003.” (Petition (“Pet.”) at p. 1.)2

 Plaintiff’s

Petition contained a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals caption. 

On January 18, 2007, Plaintiff filed, in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, a “Motion to

Consolidate Claims and For Leave to Use the Original Record” in his appeal of a related district

court case. (Wendell S. Elam v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc. and OPEIU Local 29, Case

No. 06-17097, District Court Case No. 05-4179-BZ.) In his motion filed in that case, Plaintiff

conceded that “the district court lacks jurisdiction to hear the petition for review.” (Plaintiff’s

Motion to Consolidate, p. 4, Board Ex. 2.) Plaintiff also sent a letter to this Court, dated January 19,

2007, indicating that his intention was to file the instant Petition for Review in the court of appeals

Case 3:06-cv-06747-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 2 of 5
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

pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 160(f). (Board Ex. 3.) Despite Plaintiff’s representations, he nevertheless

elected to file an untimely opposition to the Board’s pending motion to dismiss.

LEGAL STANDARD

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) authorizes a party to move to dismiss a claim for

lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction; thus, the court

presumes lack of jurisdiction, and the party seeks to invoke the court’s jurisdiction bears the burden

of proving that subject matter jurisdiction exists. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S.

375, 377 (1994). A party challenging the court's jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may do so by

raising either a facial attack or a factual attack. See White v. Lee, 227 F.3d 1214, 1242 (9th Cir.

2000). 

A facial attack is one where “the challenger asserts that the allegations contained in a

complaint are insufficient on their face to invoke federal jurisdiction.” Safe Air for Everyone v.

Meyer, 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). In evaluating a facial attack to jurisdiction, the Court

must accept the factual allegations in plaintiff's complaint as true. See Miranda v. Reno, 238 F.3d

1156, 1157 n. 1 (9th Cir. 2001). For a factual attack, in contrast, the Court may consider extrinsic

evidence. See Roberts v. Corrothers, 812 F.2d 1173, 1177 (9th Cir.1987). Further, the court does

not have to assume the truthfulness of the allegations, and may resolve any factual disputes. See

White, 227 F.3d at 1242. Thus, “[o]nce the moving party has converted the motion to dismiss into a

factual motion by presenting affidavits or evidence properly before the court, the party opposing the

motion must furnish affidavits or other evidence necessary to satisfy its burden of establishing

subject matter jurisdiction.” Savage v. Glendale Union High Sch., 343 F.3d 1036, 1039 n.2 (9th Cir.

2003). 

 In the Ninth Circuit, “[j]urisdictional dismissals in cases premised on federal-question

jurisdiction are exceptional, and must satisfy the requirements specific in Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678

[] (1946).” Sun Valley Gas., Inc. v. Ernst Enters., 711 F.2d 138, 140 (9th Cir. 1983); see Safe Air for

Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039. The Bell standard provides that jurisdictional dismissals are warranted

“where the alleged claim under the [C]onstitution or federal statute clearly appears to be immaterial

and made solely for the purpose of obtaining federal jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly

Case 3:06-cv-06747-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 3 of 5
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

insubstantial and frivolous.” 327 U.S. at 682-83. Additionally, the Ninth Circuit has admonished

that a “[j]urisdictional finding of genuinely disputed facts is inappropriate when ‘the jurisdictional

issue and substantive issues are so intertwined that the question of jurisdiction is dependent on the

resolution of factual issues going to the merits’ of an action.” Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139. The

jurisdictional issue and the substantive issues are intertwined where “a statute provides the basis for

both the subject matter jurisdiction of the federal court and the plaintiff’s substantive claim for

relief.” Safe Air for Everyone, 373 F.3d at 1039 (quoting Sun Valley, 711 F.2d at 139). 

ANALYSIS

The Board contends that this Court lacks jurisdiction to review the General Counsel’s

decision refusing to issue an unfair labor practice complaint. Plaintiff does not substantively

respond to the Board’s contention.

The methods and procedures for the resolution of unfair labor practice charges are set out in

statutes and in regulations promulgated by the Board pursuant to congressional authority. NLRB v.

United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 23, 108 S. Ct. 413, 418 (1987) (citing § 156). A

union, employer, or employee may bring an unfair labor practice charge to a regional office. Until

such a charge is brought, the Board may take no enforcement action. NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck &

Co., 421 U.S. 132, 156 (1975). Should an unfair labor practice complaint issue, “it may be disposed

of by withdrawal before hearing, settlement, or formal adjudication.” United Food & Commercial

Workers Union Local 23, 108 S. Ct. at 419. If the case continues to formal adjudication, a hearing is

conducted before an administrative law judge, whose recommended decision is reviewed by the

Board. Ultimately, in such cases, the Board issues a decision and order, constituting a final agency

determination. It is that final Board decision and order which is subject to judicial review by the

Circuit Court, pursuant to Sections 10(e) and (f) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 160(e) and (f). Id. 

However, if the Regional Director determines that there is insufficient evidence to warrant

issuance of a complaint, the Director “may in his discretion, dismiss [the charge].” Id. at 418. The

determination not to issue a complaint may then be appealed to the General Counsel of the Board,

pursuant to the Board’s Rules and Regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 101.6 (2005). The Supreme Court has

stated that Section 10(f)’s provision for judicial review of a “final order of the Board” does not

Case 3:06-cv-06747-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 4 of 5
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

include review of the General Counsel’s decision not to issue a complaint.

Subsection 10(f) provides that final decisions “of the Board” shall be

judicially reviewable, and, in the context of the entire section,

discloses Congress' decision to authorize review of adjudications, not

of prosecutions. Fairly read, this may encompass any Board

adjudication resolving an unfair labor practice complaint, whether by

final order, consent decree, or settlement. But it plainly cannot be read

to provide for judicial review of the General Counsel's prosecutorial

function.

Id. at 424. The Ninth Circuit has adopted similar reasoning. See e.g. Int’l Ass’n of Machinists &

Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO v. Lubbers, 681 F.2d 598, 602-05 (9th Cir. 1982); Baker v. I.A.T.S.E.,

691 F.2d 1291, 1293-95 (9th Cir. 1982); Pacific Southwest Airlines v. NLRB, 611 F.2d 1309, 1311-

12 (9th Cir. 1980).

Here, the Regional Director for Region 32 concluded that the evidence failed to establish that

the Union breached its duty of fair representation as alleged by Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s

available recourse would be to appeal the Director’s determination to the General Counsel of the

Board, pursuant to the Board’s rules and regulations. 29 C.F.R. § 101.6 (2005). Accordingly, the

Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to review the decision not to issue an unfair labor

practice complaint. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to amend is denied to the extent he seeks this Court

to review the Board’s decision not to issue an unfair labor practice complaint. 

CONCLUSION

For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, DENIES

Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend, and VACATES the hearing set for March 27, 2007.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 22, 2007 

MARTIN J. JENKINS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-06747-MJJ Document 17 Filed 03/23/07 Page 5 of 5