Source: http://www.ecases.us/case/ca5/c601516/manuel-m-fernandez-montes-v-allied-pilots-association-fred-vogel-and
Timestamp: 2020-04-09 18:07:07
Document Index: 498357503

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 431', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 411', '§ 431']

Manuel M. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Association, Fred Vogel, and C.R. Paty, Fifth Circuit, US Court of Appeals Cases, Federal Courts, COURT CASE
Manuel M. Fernandez-Montes v. Allied Pilots Association, Fred Vogel, and C.R. Paty , 987 F.2d 278 ( 1993 )
25 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 846
At the pretrial conference, Judge McBryde stated that he was "withdrawing" the order in which Judge Mahon had denied defendants' motion to dismiss the original complaint. Judge McBryde then stated that he was granting the motion to dismiss. The same day, he issued an order dismissing plaintiff's amended complaint. The parties dispute whether Judge McBryde's order was in effect a summary judgment for defendants, due to Judge McBryde's alleged consideration of matters outside the pleadings.7 In his order dated Nov. 15, 1991, Judge McBryde explicitly denied that he had granted summary judgment for defendants. In effect, he simply reversed the court's earlier decision that the complaint stated a cause of action. He did not explicitly deny considering matters outside the pleadings, but in denying that he had granted summary judgment, he implicitly denied considering matters outside the pleadings. See, e.g., Ware v. Associated Milk Producers, Inc., 614 F.2d 413, 414-15 (5th Cir.1980) (appellate court accepted on face value "the express wording of the Order of Dismissal [which] affirmatively indicates that the district court did not consider the extra-pleading matters"); Ellis v. Cassidy, 625 F.2d 227 (9th Cir.1980) (appellate court must give credence to district court's statement that it did not consider matters outside the pleadings). See generally 2A Moore's Federal Practice para. 12.09 at 12-77 (n. 5) (2d ed. 1991) (collecting cases). Only if it appears that the district court did rely on matters outside the pleadings should an appellate court treat the dismissal as a summary judgment. See United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 594 F.2d 56, 57 n. 3 (5th Cir.1979) (citing Moch v. East Baton Rouge Parish Sch. Bd., 548 F.2d 594 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 859, 98 S. Ct. 183, 54 L. Ed. 2d 132 (1977)). See generally 2A Moore's Federal Practice para. 12.09 12-82 (n. 10) to 12-83 (2d ed. 1991). Thus, the Rule 56 requirements for an additional ten days notice and an opportunity to respond did not come into play.
We review de novo the district court's dismissal of a complaint for failure to state a claim.9 When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the district court must take the factual allegations of the complaint as true and resolve any ambiguities or doubts regarding the sufficiency of the claim in favor of the plaintiff. Doe v. United States Dep't of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1102 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citations omitted). However, conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss. See 2A Moore's Federal Practice para. 12.07[2.-5] at 12-64 n. 6 (2d ed. 1991) (collecting cases). Unless it appears "beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief," the complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and leave to amend should be liberally granted. Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957).
Despite this liberal standard, we find that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 431(c) which would be cognizable under any set of facts. This is because plaintiff has failed to demonstrate "just cause," an essential element of a claim under § 431(c). "Just cause" under § 431(c) refers to circumstances that would put a reasonable union member on notice that further investigation is warranted to assure that the union's LM filings with the Secretary of Labor (required under § 431) comport with the union's own records of its activities. Establishing "just cause" requires the union member to state what he wishes to verify in the LM Reports and how the particular union records he is requesting are expected to assist him in doing so. See, e.g., Local No. 1419, ILA, General Longshore Workers Union AFL-CIO v. Smith, 301 F.2d 791 (5th Cir.1962); Flaherty v. Warehousemen, Garage & Service Station Employees' Local Union No. 334, 574 F.2d 484 (9th Cir.1978); Mallick v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, et al., 749 F.2d 771 (D.C.Cir.1984); Daniels v. National Post Office Mail Handlers, 454 F. Supp. 336 (E.D.Va.1978); McGinnis v. Local Union No. 710, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 664 F. Supp. 1212 (N.D.Ill.1987).10
There are many cases affirming a union member's right to inspect and photocopy receipts and other union records necessary to verify the accuracy of the union's financial statements filed with the Secretary of Labor as required by § 431. See, e.g., Conley v. United Steelworkers of America, et al., 549 F.2d 1122 (7th Cir.1977); McGinnis, 664 F. Supp. 1212; Moran v. Walsh, 759 F. Supp. 1067 (S.D.N.Y.1991). The only case of which we are aware involving a union member's access to union records necessary to verify the union's constitution and bylaws is Daniels v. National Post Office Mail Handlers, 454 F. Supp. 336 (E.D.Va.1978). In Daniels, a member of a postal workers' union sought to compel release of minutes of meetings at which the union's constitution had been adopted. The postal worker brought claims under both sections 411 and 431, charging that the minutes were needed in order to ascertain that the constitution the union filed in its LM Report was the constitution the membership had voted to adopt. Although the court dismissed plaintiff's claims for lack of venue, the court noted that plaintiff had clearly demonstrated "just cause" under § 431:
While § 411 contains general language regarding the union member's "right to participate" in union affairs, subject only to "reasonable" limits imposed by the union, § 411(a)(1) has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as being "no more than a command that members and classes of members shall not be discriminated against in their right to nominate and vote." Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 139, 85 S. Ct. 292, 295, 13 L. Ed. 2d 190 (1964).14 See also Ackley v. Western Conference of Teamsters, 958 F.2d 1463, 1473 (9th Cir.1992). We think the claim that plaintiff is discriminated against by the union because the union fails to accommodate his need for assistance in comprehending English in the particular manner upon which he insists stretches § 411 further than Congress intended. Although at least one circuit has construed very liberally the union member's "right to participate" under § 411, see, e.g., Bunz v. Moving Picture Machine Operators' Protective Union, 567 F.2d 1117 (D.C.Cir.1977), that same circuit has recognized that:
Mallick, 749 F.2d at 776 (quoting United Steelworkers v. Sadlowski, 457 U.S. 102, 111, 102 S. Ct. 2339, 2345, 72 L. Ed. 2d 707 (1982)). The statutory right to participate does not guarantee access to all union information about which a union member might wish to be made aware, to discuss with other union members, or to have an opportunity to study at his leisure.15
Ordinarily, when matters outside the pleadings are considered, a motion for dismissal based on failure to state a claim is converted into a motion for summary judgment (see Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)), which is disposed of as required by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. Even when granted sua sponte, summary judgment is governed by Rule 56's requirement of ten days notice and an opportunity to respond. See, e.g., Powell v. United States, 849 F.2d 1576, 1577 (5th Cir.1988) (on scheduled trial date, district court judge first gave notice that he contemplated entering summary judgment, and did so sua sponte just hours later; summary judgment was reversed by Fifth Circuit "[b]ecause settled precedent in this circuit bars entry of summary judgment without the ten days notice mandated by Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c)"). See also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 326, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 2554, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Ware v. Associated Milk Producers, 614 F.2d 413, 414 (5th Cir.1980); Arkwright-Boston Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Aries Marine Corp., 932 F.2d 442, 444-45 (5th Cir.1991); Herron v. Beck, 693 F.2d 125, 127 (11th Cir.1982); McCarty v. United States, 929 F.2d 1085, 1088 (5th Cir.1991); Estate of Smith v. Tarrant County Hosp. Dist., 691 F.2d 207, 208-09 (5th Cir.1982); Capital Films Corp. v. Charles Fries Productions, Inc., 628 F.2d 387, 391-92 (5th Cir.1980); NL Industries v. GHR Energy Corp., 940 F.2d 957, 965-66 (5th Cir.1991), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 112 S. Ct. 873, 116 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1992); Bryson v. Brand Insulations, Inc., 621 F.2d 556, 559 (3d Cir.1980)
There is a question as to the effect of the dismissal of plaintiff's § 431(c) claim. A dismissal which is designated "with prejudice" is "normally an adjudication on the merits for purposes of res judicata." 1B Moore's Federal Practice para. 0.409 [1.-2] at 316 (2d ed. 1992). Though Judge McBryde explicitly stated that his order was not a grant of summary judgment for defendants, he did not state whether the dismissal for failure to state a claim was intended to be "with prejudice" (i.e., on the merits, and therefore having res judicata effect). We think it was. At the pretrial conference, Judge McBryde denied plaintiff's request to amend his complaint again, because it appeared that under no facts would his claim be cognizable. Moreover, it is well established that a dismissal is presumed to be with prejudice unless the order explicitly states otherwise. See, e.g., Federated Dep't Stores, Inc. v. Moitie, 452 U.S. 394, 399 n. 3, 101 S. Ct. 2424, 2428 n. 3, 69 L. Ed. 2d 103 (1981); Weissinger v. United States, 423 F.2d 795, 798 n. 4 (5th Cir.1970) (en banc); Lambert v. Conrad, 536 F.2d 1183 (7th Cir.1976). This is not to say that a dismissal with prejudice must always be upheld. See Tuley v. Heyd, 482 F.2d 590 (5th Cir.1973) (error to dismiss pro se complaint with prejudice; proper result would have been dismissal without prejudice). However, where it appears "beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief," Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S. Ct. 99, 102, 2 L. Ed. 2d 80 (1957), the court's decision to dismiss the claim with prejudice should be upheld
1B Moore's Federal Practice para. 0.409[1.-2] at 310 n. 13 (2d ed. 1992) (citations omitted). The denial or grant of leave to amend a complaint is reviewed under the abuse of discretion standard. Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 401 U.S. 321, 330, 91 S. Ct. 795, 802, 28 L. Ed. 2d 77 (1971). We cannot say that the district court's denial of leave to amend the complaint a second time was error.
DocketNumber： 91-7325
Citation Numbers： 987 F.2d 278
Local No. 1419, Ila, General Longshore Workers Union, Afl-... , 301 F.2d 791 ( 1962 )
Fruit and Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen Local 760, and ... , 378 F.2d 738 ( 1967 )
Lawrence E. Moch v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board , 548 F.2d 594 ( 1977 )
Daniel Conley v. United Steelworkers of America, Local ... , 549 F.2d 1122 ( 1977 )
Patrick F. Flaherty v. Warehousemen, Garage & Service ... , 574 F.2d 484 ( 1978 )
United States v. East Baton Rouge Parish School Board , 594 F.2d 56 ( 1979 )
Capital Films Corporation v. Charles Fries Productions, Inc.... , 628 F.2d 387 ( 1980 )
Estate of Arthur Smith, Jr. v. Tarrant County Hospital ... , 691 F.2d 207 ( 1982 )
Balogun v. I.N.S. , 9 F.3d 347 ( 1993 )
Branch v. Dallas Tx City of ( 1995 )
Stitt v. Klevenhagen ( 1996 )
Jefferson v. Lead Industries ( 1997 )
Bryant v. TX Utilities Svcs ( 2000 )
Brackens v. Ennis State Bank ( 2001 )
Warden v. Barnett ( 2001 )
Swidriski v. City of Houston ( 2001 )
Nolen v. Nucentrix Broadband , 293 F.3d 926 ( 2002 )