NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

RICARDO APOLINARIO , Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.
UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS

- WEST, SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL, CTW, CLC; SETON ME DICAL CENTER; and DOES ONE THROUGH TWENTY FIVE , Defendant s
- Appellee s
. No. 14

- 17109
D.C. No. 3:13

- cv
- 04219

- VC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California Vince G. C hha bria , District Judge, Presiding
Submitted October 20 , 2016 ** San Francisco, C alifornia
Before: GRABER and M URGUIA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS , *** Chief District Judge.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not prece dent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36

- 3.

** The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

*** The Honorable Raner C. Collins , Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona , sitting by designation. 

# FILED

OCT 24 2016 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 Plaintiff Ricardo Apolinario appeals from two district court orders dismissing his claims against his former employer, Seton Medical Center (“Seton”)
and labor union , United Healthcare Workers

- West Service Employees International Union (“ the Union ”). The first order granted the Union ’s motion to dismiss Apolinario’s claim for a breac h of the duty of fair representation under the
Na t ional Labor Relations Act . The second order granted Seton ’s motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning his claims brought under the Labor Management Relations Act , 1947

. We review dismissals under Fede ral Rules of
Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) and 12(c) de novo. See Lyon v. Chase Bank USA , 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011) (judgment on the pleadings); Knievel v. ESPN , 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (motions to dismiss). W e now affirm. To prevail against either Seton or the U nion, Apolinario has the burden to
demonstrate the U nion breached i ts duty of fair representation. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. , 424 U.S. 554, 570

– 71 (1976) ; see also United Parcel Serv.,
Inc. v. Mitchell , 451 U.S. 56, 62 (1981 )

. A union breaches its duty of fair representation to an employee by engaging in conduct that was “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes , 386 U.S. 171, 190 (1967). Whether to pursue a grievance is typically a decision in which u nions “ retain wide
discretion to act in what th ey perceive to be their members’ best interests .” Peterson v. Kennedy , 771 F.2d 1244, 1253 (9th Cir. 1985)

. Apolinario’s operative3 complaint does not allege enough specific facts to support a reasonable inference
th at the U nion breached its duty of fair representation in handling his grievance, and mostly includes “ threadbar e recitals of a cause of action’ s elements, supporte d by mere conclusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009)

. Notably, Apoli nario does not a llege specific facts (1) suggesting any motive the
U nion might have had for discriminating against him or acting in bad faith, (2) showing that similarly situated employees were treated differently by the U nion, or (3) giving context to or explain ing his bare allegation. Because he failed to “provide more[,]” his claim s must fail. Mendiondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr. , 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008)

. AFFIRMED.