UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE DIS TRICT OF COLUM BIA
LYNETTE M. HUTCHINSON P laintif f, v. Civil Action No. 10-2043 (JD B) GEORG E PA RK

ER, P RESIDENT WASHINGTON TEACHERS UNION Defendan ts.

MEMORAN DUM OP INION Plaintiff L y

nette M. Hutchinson has br oug ht this action ag ainst the Washington Te ache rs' Union (" WTU") c omplaining of the fa ilure by

WTU to pursue her e mploy ment g rieva

nce a ll the way throug h arbitration. For the r easons e x plained below, the complaint will be dismiss ed.
BACK GR OUND Hutchinson was a

n elementa

ry school teac her w ith the District of Columbia Publ ic Schools from 1987 until she was terminate d in 2003 . Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12. She develope d medical issues in 2002, conce rningwhich she ha d unsatisfac tory dealing s with the D.C. Publi c Schools befor e her

termination in April 2003. See id ¶¶ 6- 12. She soug ht assistance f rom WTU under her c ollective bar g ainingagree ment, and WTU repr esente d her in c halleng ing the termination under the three -step g rieva nce pr ocess. I d. ¶¶ 13- 16. After some delay , she lost at the third stag e; she then r equeste d WTU to pursue arbitration, which it init ially had agree d to do. I d. ¶¶ 14-15. Ultimately , howeve r, ag ain af ter some de lay , WTU informed Hutchinson that it would not take the matter

to arbitration. I d. ¶ 17. Hutchinson bring s this action assertingsever al ca usesof ac tion under the c ollective bar g ainingag ree ment and under common law. In six counts, she claims brea ch of the implied warra nty of g ood faith and f

air de aling ; brea ch of the duty of fa ir repr esentation; breac h of fiducia ry duty ; neg lige nce; f

raud; a nd intentional infliction of emotional distress. I d. ¶¶ 19- 45. Hutchinson seeks da mag es of one milli on dollars on her c laims.
DISCUSSIO N WTU has moved to dismiss Hutchinson' s complaint for lac k of jurisdiction and fa ilure to state a c laim. The e ssence of WTU' s argument is that under the District of Columbi a' s 1 Comprehensive Me rit Personnel Ac t (" CMPA"), D.C. Code § 1.601.01 et. seq. , exclusive jurisdiction over alleg ations of unfa ir labor pr actice s (includingbrea ch of the duty of fa ir repr esentation and simil ar c laims), even if dresse d up as common law c laims lies with the D.C. Public Employ ee Re lations Boar d (" PERB" ). He nce, a ll of Hutchinson' s cause s of ac tion, which
asser t claims in the nature of

unfair la bor pra ctices or

brea ches of

the collec tive barg aining ag ree ment, althoug h also fra med as c ommon law torts, must be dismi ssed bec ause the CMPA pree mpts jurisdi ction over suc h matters, the PERB thus has e x clusive jurisdiction, and any rig ht of judicial re view is in the Superior Court of the D istrict of Columbia, not in t his court. See, e .g ., McManus v. District of Columbia, 530 F . Supp. 2d 46, 76-79 (D.D.C. 2007); Jackson v. D.C. Dep' t of Hea lth, No. 06-1317, 2007 U.S. Dist. L exis 32562, at *4-5 (D .D.C. May 3, 2007); see also Thompson v. District of Columbia, 428 F.3d 283, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Holman v. Wil liams, 436 F. Supp. 2d 68, 74 (D.D.C. 2006); Cooper v. A FSCME, L ocal 1033, 656 A.2d 1141, 1142-43 (D.C. 1995).
The Court construe s Hutchinson' s complaint as namingonly WTU as a def

endant, a s 1 plainly stated in the first sente nce a nd in para g raph 2 of

the complaint. 2Hutchinson' s response to WTU' s formidable a rgument is twofold. She ag ree s that the complaint ag ainst WTU should be dismi ssed but then asks for leave to amend the c omplaint to add the pr oper pa

rty . In her " motion" filed on Mar ch 16, 2011, she indicates that she will have
an ame nded complaint re ady to file within 15 day s. See Pl.'s Mot. and Me m. to Dismi ss and Request for L eave to Amend Pleading [EC F Doc ket No. 5] at 2. To date, no amended c omplaint has bee n lodge d. See L CvR 15.1. W TU' s response, in turn, is to note that Hutchinson ha s
conce ded that the a ction ag ainst WTU should be dismi ssed, to stipulate to the voluntary dismiss al of the a ction ag ainst WTU pursuant to Fede ral Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) (1), a nd to urg e dismissal with prejudice a nd denial of the motion for leave to amend base d on futility . See g ener ally Def .' s Response [ECF Docke t. No. 6]. Plainly , WTU's jurisdictional ar g ument based on pr eemption under the CMPA is correc t. Hutchinson conc edes a s much. Henc e, the c omplaint ag ainst WTU will be voluntarily dismiss ed based on the parties' stipulation pursuant to Rul e 41(a )(1)
. WTU's f utilit y response to 2 Hutchinson' s motion for leave to amend also has some mer it. I ndeed, a new de fenda

nt, which is the amendme nt that Hutchinson purports to intend, will not cure the jurisdictional proble m. Howeve r, the Court conc ludes that it need not fully resolve that issue at this point . Instead, with the complaint voluntarily dismiss ed ag ainst the only prese nt defe ndant, the Court will deny the motion for leave to amend but leave open the possibility of a ne w ac tion ag ainst a diffe rent defe ndant -- how ever

unlikely to succe ed -- for a

nother da y .
WTU also argues that any action filed w ith the PERB would not be timely and that no 2 valid unfair la

bor pra ctice is a lleg ed in the complaint. In light of the voluntary dismiss al of the action ag ainst WTU, the Court will notrea ch these issues. 3CONCLUSION

For the above rea sons, the complaint ag ainst WTU will be voluntarily dismiss ed and the motion for leave to amend denie d. A sepa rate order will issue.

SO ORDERED
. /s/ J ohn D. B ates J OHN D. B ATES United States District J udg e Date: Ma

y 27, 2011

4