UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

PULTE HOMES, INC.,

Plaintiff,

Case No. 09-13638

vs. Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

LABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,

TERENCE M. O’SULLIVAN, and

RANDY MAYHEW,

Defendants. 

_____________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER

AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the

United States Courthouse, in the City of Port Huron, State of 

Michigan, on the 24th day of September, 2009

 PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and

Preliminary Injunction (dkt 2), filed on September 15, 2009. Defendants filed a response on

September 16, 2009 (dkt 6). On September 16, 2009, the Court issued an order, wherein it declined

to grant a Temporary Restraining Order and scheduled a hearing on the Motion for Preliminary

Injunction for Tuesday, September 22, 2009. Pursuant to the September 16, 2009, order, Plaintiff

filed a supplemental brief on September 21, 2009 (dkt 13). On September 22, 2009, the Court heard

oral arguments regarding Plaintiff’s Motion. After a thorough consideration of the parties’

respective briefs and exhibits, as well as their arguments at the hearing, the Court denies Plaintiff’s

Motion for the reasons set forth below. 

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 190
2

II. BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Pulte Homes, Inc. (Pulte) is the largest new home builder in the United States. Its

corporate headquarters are located in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and it operates in many other

states, including Arizona, Texas, California, and Nevada. Defendant Laborers’ International Union

of North America (LiUNA) is a labor organization that represents workers in construction and other

industries. Defendants Terence O’Sullivan and Randy Mayhew are employed, respectively, as

LiUNA’s Vice President and National Director. LiUNA does not represent any of Pulte’s

employees, however, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have attempted for the past two years to force

Plaintiff’s subcontractors to enter into agreements with LiUNA. 

The action arises out of Defendants’ alleged response to the termination of one Pulte

employee and the alleged termination of seven other Pulte employees. On September 4, 2009, Pulte

Building Systems, a division of Pulte, terminated Roberto Baltierra (Baltierra), who had previously

worked as a crew lead. Pulte maintains that Baltierra was terminated for various behavioral and

performance problems, including failure to comply with safety procedures, failure to follow the

legitimate directions of his supervisors, and allowing undocumented laborers to work. Defendants

aver that Baltierra was fired for wearing a t-shirt that expressed support for LiUNA. Defendants also

claim that the seven other Pulte employees were fired for similarly expressing support for LiUNA.

Plaintiff contends that these seven individuals were not terminated and maintains that they are free

to continue their employment with Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff asserts that, on September 9, 2009, Defendants began a targeted effort to sabotage

and interrupt Plaintiff’s business operations and negatively affect Plaintiff’s relationships with the

public, its employees, and potential customers. Plaintiff believes Defendants have encouraged

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 191
3

LiUNA supporters to inundate Pulte with mass quantities of phone calls and e-mails in an attempt

to inhibit Pulte’s ability to conduct day-to-day business activities and to intimidate Pulte’s

employees. LiUNA’s website features a “call to action,” which provides a pre-typed e-mail voicing

opposition to Pulte’s alleged termination of employees for supporting the union. This e-mail is preaddressed to Pulte and allows users to send it to Pulte with a click of a few buttons. LiUNA also has

distributed flyers to the same effect, i.e., encouraging supporters to call Pulte and express their

dissatisfaction. 

According to Plaintiff, Pulte’s e-mail system is set up such that each user is permitted only

a certain number of e-mails in his or her inbox at one time. Similarly, a limited number of phone

calls can be received at any given time, and voice-mail inboxes can only hold a limited number of

voice-mails. Plaintiff claims that the high volume of calls and e-mails have forced some Pulte

employees to shut down their voice-mail and e-mail inboxes. Plaintiff’s Compliant alleges a

violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1030 et seq, trespass to chattels,

tortious interference with business relationships, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff requests that this

Court enjoin Defendants from encouraging LiUNA supporters to make such telephone calls and emails so that Plaintiff can maintain its day-to-day business operations uninterrupted. 

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A court is to consider the following four factors in determining whether a plaintiff is entitled

to a temporary restraining order or other preliminary injunctive relief:

(1) whether the movant has shown a strong or substantial likelihood or

probability of success on the merits;

(2) whether the movant has shown that he or she would suffer irreparable harm

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 192
4

if the preliminary relief is not issued;

(3) whether the issuance of a preliminary injunction will not cause substantial

harm to third parties; and

(4) whether the public interest would be served by the issuance of a preliminary

injunction.

Sandison v. Michigan High School Athletic Association, Inc., 64 F.3d 1026, 1030 (6th Cir. 1995);

UASCO Coal Co. v. Carbomin Energy, Inc., 689 F.2d 94, 98 (6th Cir. 1982); Mason County Med.

Ass’n v. Knebel, 563 F.2d 256, 261 (6th Cir. 1977). The standard for preliminary injunction is not

a rigid and comprehensive test, and the four factors are to be balanced, not prerequisites that must

be satisfied, but instead “these factors simply guide the discretion of the court; they are not meant

to be rigid and unbending requirements.” In re Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. 963 F.2d 855, 859 (6th Cir.

1992). 

IV. ANALYSIS

The Court concludes that its lacks jurisdiction to issue an injunction after reviewing the

Norris-LaGuardia Act (NLG Act). 29 U.S.C. § 101 et seq. The NLG Act provides that “[n]o court

of the United States shall have jurisdiction to issue any restraining order or temporary or permanent

injunction in a case involving or growing out of a labor dispute, except in a strict conformity with

the provisions of [the Act].” 29 U.S.C. § 101. Specifically, the NLG Act bars federal courts from

issuing injunctions that would prohibit persons participating or interested in a labor dispute from:

“(e) [g]iving publicity to the existence of . . . any labor dispute, whether by advertising, speaking,

patrolling, or by any other method not involving fraud or violence,” and “(f) [a]ssembling peaceably

to act or to organize to act in promotion of their interests in a labor dispute.” 29 U.S.C. §§ 104(e),

(f). 

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 193
5

A case involves or grows out of a labor dispute when the case “involves persons who are

engaged in the same industry, trade, craft or occupation,” including disputes between “one or more

employers or associations of employers and one or more employees or associations of employees.”

29 U.S.C. § 113(a). A labor dispute under the NLG Act includes “any controversy concerning terms

or conditions of employment, or concerning the association or representation of persons in

negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment,

regardless of whether or not the disputants stand in the proximate relation of employer and

employee.” 29 U.S.C.§ 113(c). See also, Marine Cooks & Stewards v. Panama S.S. Co., 362 U.S.

365, 369 (1960) (“The [NLG Act] language is broad because Congress was intent upon taking the

federal courts out of the labor injunction business except in very limited circumstances . . . .”);

Corporate Printing Co., v. New York Typographical Union No. 6, 555 F.2d 18, 20 (2nd Cir. 1977)

(stating that the term labor dispute is “broadly defined”).

The Court finds that this case involves a labor dispute within the meaning of the NLG Act.

Plaintiff and Defendants are both engaged in the construction industry, and there is a well-identified

dispute between an employer, employees, and an association representing the employees.

Specifically, the Court concludes that there is a labor dispute because the actions of Defendants to

which Plaintiff objects are directly related to (1) Plaintiff’s alleged termination of employees for

supporting LiUNA, and (2) Defendants’ ongoing efforts to force Plaintiff’s subcontractors to enter

into agreements with LiUNA. See Lauf v. E.G. Shinner & Co., 303 U.S. 323 (1938) (holding that

an attempt by a labor union to coerce an employer to require its employees to unionize by means of

picketing constituted a labor dispute under the NLG Act even though none of the employees

belonged to the labor union). As Plaintiff is asking the Court to enjoin Defendants’ efforts to give

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 194
6

publicity to this dispute and have others act in support of LiUNA’s interests, which the Court is

specifically prohibited from enjoining under Sections 104(e) and (f) of the NLG Act, the Court must

deny Plaintiff’s Motion. 

V. CONCLUSION

For the reasons set forth above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s motion for

Preliminary Injunction is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: September 24, 2009

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of

record by electronic or U.S. mail on September 24, 2009.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290

2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Doc # 14 Filed 09/24/09 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 195