09 - 51 58 - cv Labor er s I nt ’ l U ni on of N or t h A m er i ca , Loca l 210 v. M cK i nney D r i l l i ng C o. UNI TED S TATES CO URT O F AP PEALS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT S UM M ARY OR DER RU L I N G S B Y S U MM A R Y O R D E R D O N O T H A V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A S UM M ARY O RDER FI LED O N O R A FT ER J ANU ARY 1 , 2 0 0 7 , I S PERM I TTED A ND I S GO VERN ED BY FE DERA L RULE OF APP ELLATE P RO CEDU RE 3 2 . 1 AND TH I S COU RT’ S LO CAL RULE 3 2 . 1 . 1 . W HEN CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O R D ER I N A DO CUM ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S COU RT, A P ARTY M US T CI TE E I T HE R T HE F E DE RA L A P P E ND I X OR A N E L E CT RO NI C DA T AB AS E ( W I T H T HE N OT AT I ON “ S UMM AR Y OR DE R” ) . A P AR T Y CI T I NG T O A S UMM AR Y OR DE R M US T S E RV E A C OP Y OF I T ON ANY P ARTY NOT REPRES ENTED BY CO UNSEL. A ta s t at ed t erm of

the U ni t ed St at es Courtof A ppeal s f

orthe Second Ci r cui t , hel d at the D ani elPatr i ck M oyni han U ni t ed St at es C ourthous e, 500 Pear l Str eet , i n the C i ty of N ew Y ork, on the 9 day of

A ugus t , tw o thous and t en. th P RE S E NT : RO BE RT D. S AC K,

R E E N A R A G G I, GE RA RD E . L YNC H, C i r cui tJudges .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- LA BO RE RS I N TERN A TI O N A L U N I O N O F N O R T H A M E R I C A , L O C A L 210,

P lai nt i f f

-Appellant , v. N o. 09- 5158- cv M CK INNE Y DR I L L ING C OM P ANY,

D ef endant

-Appellee .

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- A P P E A R IN G F O R P L A IN T I F F - A P P E L L A N T : JO H N M . L IC H T E N T H A L , L ip sitz G r e e n S c i me Cambr i a LLP, B uf f al o, N ew Y ork. A P P E A R IN G F O R D E F E N D A N T -A P P E L L E E : M A R K M O L D E N H A U E R (R o b ert A . D o re n , on the br i ef ) , B ond, Schoenec k & K i ng , PLLC , Buf f al o, N ew Y ork.2

A ppealf r om a j udgm entof

the U ni t ed St at es D i s tr i ctC ourtf orthe W es t ern D i s tr i ct o f N e w Y o rk(R ic h a rd J . A rc a ra , Judge ). UP ON DUE CO NS I DE RA T I ON I T I S HE RE BY OR DE RE D, ADJUDGE D, AND D E C R E E D thatthe N ovember13, 2009 j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourti s A FFIRM E D and d e f e n d a n t ’ s mo t i o n f

o rs a n c t i o n s i s DE NI E D. Pl ai nt i f f L abor er s I nt ernat i onalU ni on of N orth A m er i ca, L ocal210 ( “Local210”) appea l s f r om an aw ar d of

s um m ary j udgm enti n f avorof de f endantM cK i nney D ri l l i ng Co mp a n y ( “ M c Ki n n e y ” ) i n th i s a c t i o n u n d e rs e c t i o n 3 0 1 o f th e Ta f t - Ha rt l e y Ac t , 2 9 U. S . C. § 1 8 5 , (1 ) to e n fo rc e a g rie v a n c e ag a in st M c K in n e y fo r fa ili n g to m a k e c e rta inp a y m e n ts to L ocal210 f

orw ork al l egedly cover ed by a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement( “C B A ”) b etw ee n the p arti es b u t pe rform ed b y m em b ers o f an o ther u n ion , o r, alt ern ati v ely, (2) fo r a courtdet erm i nat i on thatM cK i nney’ s conductbr eac hed the C B A . I n def endi ng the aw ar d, M c K in n e y m o v e s fo r sa n c tio n s p u rsu a n t to F e d . R . A p p . P . 3 8 a n d2 8 U .S .C . § 1 9 2 7 . W e re v iew a n a w a rdo f su m m a ry ju d g m e n t d e n o v o , “re so lv in g a ll am b ig u iti e s a n dd ra w in g a ll p e rm iss ib le f

a c tu a l in fe re n c e s in fa v o r o f th e p a rty a g a in s t w h o m su m m a ry ju d g m e n t is s ought . ” B ur g v. G os s el i n, 591 F. 3d 95, 97 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( i nt ernalquot at i on m arks om i tt ed) . W e w i l l aw ar d s anct i ons f orpur s ui tof

an appea l onl y i f

the appe l l antact ed i n bad f ai th ve xa t i ou s l y t o mul t i pl y pr oc e e di ng s , s e e I n r e 6 0 E. 8 0th St . Equ i t i e s , I nc . , 2 18 F. 3d 1 0 9 , 1 1 5 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 0 ) ( d isc u ss in g § 1 9 2 7 sta n d a rd ), o r p u rsu e dap a ten tlyfriv o lo u s ap p e a l, s ee I n r e D r exelB urnham L ambertG roup Inc . , 995 F. 2d 1138, 1147 ( 2d C i r . 1993)3

( di s cus s i ng R ul e 38 s t andar d) . W e as s um e the part i es ’ f ami l i ar i ty w i th the f

act s and proced uralhis t ory of this and rel at ed cases betw een them , see, e. g. , C on struct i on Ind us. E m p’ r s A s s ’ n v. L ocalU ni on N o. 210, L abor er s I nt ’ l U ni on of N . A m . ( “M cK i nney I ”) , 580 F .3 d8 9 (2 dC ir. 2 0 0 9 ), w h ich w e re fe re n c e o n ly a s n e c e ss a ry to e x p lain o u r d e c isio n to a f f i rm. 1. C l ai m f

orE nf or cement L o ca l 21 0 sub m it s tha t th e d istri ct co u rterred in g ran ti n g M c K inn ey su m m ary j udgm enton i t s en for cem entcl ai m on the gr ound thatthe part i es ’ di s put e i s j ur i s di ct i onal and, ther ef

or e, nots ubj ectt o the gr i evanc e pr ocedur es est abl i s hed by the C B A . L ocal210 d o e s n o t –a n dc a n n o t –c o n ten dtha t th e p a rties ’ C B A , inall it s itera tio n s, d o e s n o t ex p re ss ly exclude j ur i s di ct i onaldi s put es f r om the gr i evanc e pr oces s . R ather , i tcont ends thatthe part i es ’ di s put e i s notj ur i s di ct i onalbecaus e Local210 does nots eek t o ha ve w ork t aken f r om anotheruni on; i tsee ks onl y “t o enf or ce thos e pr ovi s i ons of i t s C B A w i th M cK i nney r el at i ng t o the preservati on of the U nion’s w ork and the enforcem ent of i t s r epresent at i on al ri gh t s vi sà - v i s work e r s e n g a g e di n c a i s s o n w o rk , w h o e v e rth e y maybe . ” App e l l a n t ’ s Br . a t15 . To s t at e the cl ai m i s t o de f

eati t . A uni on’ s a ct i on t o e nf or ce the t erm s of

i t s C B A w i th r es pect to w o rk p erfo rm ed b y a n o n -un ion m em b er is n ec essa ri ly a c lai m fo r the w o rk. S ee L ab o rers I nt ’ l U ni onof

N . A m. , Loc a l 11 3 v . Sup e rExc a va t or s , I nc . , 33 8 N. L. R. B. 47 2, 474- 75 ( 2002) ; s ee a l s o L ocal30, U ni t ed Sl at e, T i l e & C om pos i t i on R oof er s A s s ’ n, v. N L R B , 1 F . 3d 1419, 1427 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “The di s t i ncti on . . . betw een s eeki ng the w ork and s eeki ng4

p ay m en t f

o r th e w o rk is ep h em era l. ”). A n dw h en the w o rk at issue is pe rform ed b y m em b ers of a di ff erentun i on , the en for cem ent cl ai m present s a j uri sdi ct i on al dis pu t e. S ee L abo rer s’ I nt ’ l U ni on of

N . A m . , Local931 v. Car l Bol ander& Sons Co. , 305 N . L . R . B . 49 0, 491 ( 1991) . B ecaus e w e agr ee w i th the di s tr i ctcourtthatthe deci s i on L ocal210 s eeks t o enf or ce c o n c e rn s aj u r i s d i c t i o n a l d i s p u t e e x p r e s s l y e x c l u d e df r o m g r i e v a n c e b y th e p a rt i e s ’ CB A, we c o n c lu d e th a t th e re w a s n o b a sis fo r en fo rc e m e n t, a n dtha t su m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th is c laim w a s c o rr e c tly e n te re din fa v o r o f M c K in n e y . 2. B r eac h of

C ol l ect i ve B ar gai ni ng A gr eement L ocal210 as s ert s that , even i f i t s gr i evanc e dec i s i on i s notenf or ceabl e, the di s tr i ct courterr ed i n di s m i s s i ng i t s br eac h of contr actcl ai m becaus e the courtcoul d have r es ol ved th e jurisd ict io n a l d is p u te u n d e rl y in g th e c la im . A s s u m in g s u c h au th o ri ty , w h ic h n e ith e r p arty di s put es , w e ar e notper s uaded bec aus e the r ecor d f ai l s t o r evea l a tr i abl e i s s ue of f acton the j ur i s di ct i onalpoi nt . M cK i nney pr es ent ed evi dence thatthe C B A di d n ot encom pas s the r el evantcai s s on w ork, and L ocal210 f ai l ed t o adduce any evi dence that , even w hen vi ew ed inthe li g h t m o st fa v o rab le to the u n io n , “ w o u ldb e su ffic ien t t o sup p o rt aju ry v e rd ict in its fav o r. ” B u rtR igid B o x , Inc . v . T rav elers P rop . C as. C o rp., 3 0 2 F . 3 d8 3 , 9 1 (2d C ir . 2 0 0 2 ). T he C B A l anguage ci t ed by Local210 does not , by i t s t erm s , encompas s cai s s on w ork, and M cK i nn ey p res ented evidence thatsuch l ang uag e general l y is un derst oo d n ot t o en com pass th a t w o rk . S e e g e n e ra lly2 0 W ill isto n o n C o n tra c ts § 5 5 :2 0 (4 th ed . 2 0 0 4 ) (“ [A ] co u rt sh o u ld s eek t o as cert ai n the meani ng of a col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eementnotonl y by vi ew i ng the5

l anguage us ed by the part i es t o the col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement , butal s o by cons i der i ng the part i e s ’ pa s ti nt e rpr e t a t i on s a ndpr a c t i c e s . ” ) . N ot abl y, Loc a l 21 0 h a s e nt e r e d other b a rg a in in g ag re e m e n ts w h o se term s e x p licitly ref e re n c e su c h ca iss o n w o rk . M eanw hi l e, L o c a l 2 1 0 h a s n e v e r p e rf o rm e dc a is s o n w o rku n d e r th e C B A h e re a t is s u e . T o the ext ent L ocal210 att empt s t o creat e an i s s ue of f actby chal l engi ng thi s s econd point , i tof f er s no p e rsu asiv e rea so n w h y i t sh o u ld no t b e esto p p ed fr o m do ing so b y ou r pri o r de c isio n in M cK i nney I , hol di ng thatL ocal210 had neverper f orm ed ca i s s on w ork underthatC B A . See B ank of N . Y . v. Fi r s tM i l l enni um , I nc. , 6 07 F . 3d 9 05 , 918 ( 2d C i r . 2010) ( not i ng that col l at er ales t oppel“ bar s apl ai nt i f f f r om r el i t i gat i ng an i s s ue thathas al r eady be en f ul l y and fai rly li t i gated i n a p ri or proceed i ng ” (em ph asi s om i tt ed)) . In any ev ent, the evi den ce of past cai s s on w ork i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o r ai s e a tr i abl e ques t i on of f actbecaus e i ti s based on a n in e tee n -y e a r-o ldo b se rv a tio n b y a n in d iv idu a l w h o c a n n o t sta te th a t th e w o rkw a s a c tu a lly per f orm ed undera col l ect i ve bar gai ni ng agr eement . A ccor di ngl y, b ecaus e Local210 has f ai l ed t o r ai s e a tr i abl e i s s ue of f actr es pect i ng i t s ent i t l ementt o cai s s on w ork, M cK i nney w as e n title dto s u m m a ry ju d g m e n t o n th e c la im o f b re a c h .6

3. Sanct i ons F i nall y, w e den y M cK i nn ey’s m oti on foran aw ard of appe l l at e sanct i on s becau se L ocal210’ s ar gum ent s , w hi l e unsuc ces s f ul , ar e notso f

r i vol ous or i ndi cat i ve of bad f ai th as t o w arr ant s ancti on s. In r e D rexel B urnham L am bertG roup Inc. , 99 5 F . 2d at 114 7; see al so I n re 60 E . 80th S t . E qui t i es , Inc . , 218 F. 3d at115. W e not e, how ever , thatthe ques t i on of sa n c tio n s is ac lo se o n e a n dth a t L o c a l 2 1 0 ’s c o n tinu e dp e rsis ten c e inlit ig a tin g its d isp u te w i th M cK i nney aboutthe aw ar d of cai s s on w ork t o anotheruni on coul d j us t i f y the im p o s itio n o f f

u tu re s a n c tio n s . W e h a v e c o n sid e re dth e p a rties ’ o th e r a rg u m e n ts a n dfin dth e m to b e w ith o u t m e rit. A ccor di ngl y, the N ovember13, 2 00 9 j udgm entof the di s tr i ctcourti s A FFIRM E D , and p l a i n t i f f’ s mo t i o n f

o rs a n c t i o n s i s DE NI E D.

FOR TH E CO UR T: C A T H E R IN E O ’H A G A N W O L F E , C lerk o f C o u rt