# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-7050 September Term, 2021
1: 19-cv -029 25-RDM Filed O n: March 9, 20 22 Dale Ju dd, App ellant

v

. Service Emp loyees Int erna tiona l Union Loca l 32B J an d Melwood Ho rticultural T raining Cente r, Inc. , App ellees

ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Hend erson , T ate l, an d P illard, Circuit Jud ges

J U D G M E N T
T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia, on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties, a nd the sup plem ent the reto. Se e Fe d. R. App . P. 34 (a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 3 4(j). Upon con siderat ion o f the foregoing, th e m otion to app oint coun sel, a nd the m otion for lea ve to f ile a jo int supp lem ent al ap pen dix, it is
ORDERED tha t th e m otion to app oint coun sel be de nied . In civ il cases, app ellant s are noten titled to a ppo intm entof cou nsel when the y

ha v e n ot d em onst rated suf f icient likeliho od of

succe ss on the m erits. I t is
FURTHER ORDERED tha t th e m otion for lea v e to f ile a jo int su pple me nta l app end ix

be granted . S ee D.C. Cir. Rule 3 0(e). I t is

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-7050 September Term, 2021
FURTHER ORDERED A ND ADJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s A pril 14, 20 21, orde r be af

f irmed . T he district cou rt he ld th at a ppe llant ra ised a hybrid § 3 01/fair represe nta tion claim against a ppe llees a nd tha t such claim was u ntim ely unde r the app licable st atu te o f

limita tions. Se e DelCost ello v. Int’l B hd. of T eam sters, 4 62 U.S. 151 , 16 3 (19 83) (six- mo nth stat ute of limita tions app lies to hybrid § 3 01/ duty of fair represe nta tion claims). App ellantdo es n ot ch allenge t he district cou rt’s interpre tatio n o f his claim or co nte nd tha t a dif feren t sta tute of

limita tion app lies an d h as th erefore forfeited the se a rg um ent s. A lthou gh app ellantcon tinue s to assert tha t he tim ely filed charges wi th t he Nation al La bor Re lation s Bo ard (“NLRB”) and tha t th ose charges were mish and led, “w hen a p laintif f accu ses h is unio n o f

a b reach of

the du ty of

fair represe nta tion in a charge f iled with the NLRB, he has by then , as a m atte r of law, ‘discovered’ th e groun ds for his h y brid § 30 1 claim .” Sim mo ns v. Howard Un iv ., 1 57 F.3d 91 4, 9 16 (D.C. Cir. 1998 ). T hus, the district co urt co rrectly de term ined tha t app ellant ’s hybrid claim a ccrued no late r tha n Novem ber 2 , 20 17. T o th e e xten t app ellantsuggests tha t th e NLRB or h is mista ken und erstan ding of the law prevent ed him f rom filing suit earlier, a ppe llant d oes notiden tif y an y f raud ulen t ind ucem entto dela y , see id., and a “litigant’s o w n m isund erstan ding of the law or tactical m istakes in litig ation ” doe s no t sup port the ap plication of equitab le to lling, Menom inee Ind ian T ribe of W isc. v. United S tate s, 76 4 F.3 d 5 1, 5 8 (D.C. Cir. 20 14).
T he district cou rt also correctly determ ined tha t ap pellan t cou ld no t cha llenge a decision by NLRB’s Gen eral Cou nsel n ot t o issue an ad min istrativ e co mp laint b ased on app ellant ’s charges a nd correctly denied as f utile le ave to a me nd the com plaintto bring any claims against t he NLRB. App ellantcon ten ds th at NL RB’s alleged mish and ling of his cha rg es just if ies jud icial rev iew , bu t “the Gen eral Cou nsel h as f inal a uth ority regarding the f iling, investigation , an d p rosecu tion of un fair labo r practice com plaint s.” NLRB v. United Foo d &Com . W orkers Union , Lo cal 23 , 48 4 U.S . 11 2, 1 24 (198 7) (interna l quotat ion m arks om itted ); see 29 U.S.C. § 1 53(d ). An d, in sofar as the prop osed am end ed com plaintcou ld be liberally construe d to cha llenge som e NLRB action oth er th an the Gen eral Cou nsel’s p rosecu torial d ecision, the district co urt correctly determ ined am end me nt would b e f utile b ecau se p etition s for review of f inal orde rs of the Bo ard m ay be f iled o nly in the courts of ap pea l, see 29 U.S.C. § 1 60(f ), and no f inal o rder exists tha t cou ld sup port jurisdiction here

. Finally , ap pellan t do es n ot ch allenge t he district cou rt’s dismissa l of his discrimina tion claims as u ntim ely or his tort cla ims for failure t o sta te a claim . T hus, the se claim s are forfeit a s well. S ee United Sta tes e x rel. T otte n v. Bom bard ier Corp., 380 F.3d 48 8, 4 97 (D.C. Cir. 2004 ) (“Ordinarily , argum ent s tha t pa rties do no t m ake on app eal a re de em ed to h ave bee n waived. ”).

Page 2

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 21-7050 September Term, 2021
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam

Page 3