Opinion ID: 682499
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: jurisdiction under lmrda.

Text: 4 Messrs. Celli and Gentile pled their federal claim under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA), 29 U.S.C. Secs. 401-531, as well as under title VII of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA), 5 U.S.C. Secs. 7101-7135, R. Vol. I, doc. 1, pp 1, 3, 12. They alleged jurisdiction pursuant to 29 U.S.C. Sec. 412, which allows any person to bring a civil suit in district court for violations of 29 U.S.C. Sec. 411, LMRDA's bill of rights for labor organization members. R. Vol. I, doc. 1, at p 3. 5 To sue a union in district court under LMRDA, a plaintiff must allege that the union qualifies under that statute's definition of labor organization. That definition requires, inter alia, that the organization exist for the purpose, in whole or in part, of dealing with employers concerning grievances, labor disputes, wages, rates of pay, hours, or other terms or conditions of employment. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 402(i). Employer, however, is defined specifically to exclude the United States or any corporation wholly owned by the Government of the United States or any State or political subdivision thereof. 29 U.S.C. Sec. 402(e). The Department of Labor and several courts have stated that LMRDA does not cover unions that represent only government workers, but it does cover those that represent only private sector workers and also so-called mixed unions, i.e., those that deal with both public and private employers on behalf of their members concerning terms and conditions of employment. 2 6 Fatal to jurisdiction under LMRDA in this case, however, is the failure of Messrs. Gentile and Celli to allege that either AFGE or Local 1592 is a LMRDA labor organization, i.e., a mixed union. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and the presumption is that they lack jurisdiction unless and until a plaintiff pleads sufficient facts to establish it. United States v. Bustillos, 31 F.3d 931, 933 (10th Cir.1994); United States ex rel. Precision Co. v. Koch Indus., 971 F.2d 548, 551 (10th Cir.1992), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 113 S.Ct. 1364, 122 L.Ed.2d 742 (1993); Penteco Corp. Ltd. Partnership-1985A v. Union Gas Sys., Inc., 929 F.2d 1519, 1521 (10th Cir.1991). Mere conclusory allegations of jurisdiction are not enough; the party pleading jurisdiction must allege in his pleading the facts essential to show jurisdiction. Penteco, 929 F.2d at 1521 (quoting McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 785, 80 L.Ed. 1135 (1936)). 3 If jurisdiction is challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to show it by a preponderance of the evidence. Bustillos, 31 F.3d at 933. Plaintiffs' failure to do so prevented the district court from hearing their LMRDA claim, and the court properly held that it lacked jurisdiction. Although plaintiffs' appeal is filed pro se, their original complaint was drafted by counsel and therefore is not entitled to the liberal construction we accord pro se pleadings. 7