Opinion
8:99CV164
December 1999.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the defendants International Brotherhood of Teamsters' ("Teamsters"), Teamsters Local Union 688's ("Local 688"), and Danny Fessenden's ("Fessenden") motions to dismiss (filings 10 28) the amended complaint. In support of the motions, the defendants have submitted briefs and filed evidence in the form of two affidavits (filings 30 33). The plaintiff opposes both motions to dismiss and has submitted briefs. Attached to one of the plaintiff's briefs is an index of evidence that has not been filed with the Clerk of the District Court. After reviewing the amended complaint (filing 24), affidavits, and briefs, the Court shall dismiss the amended complaint against the Teamsters for failure to state a claim, and shall grant the alternative motion of Local 688 and Fessenden to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
I. Factual Summary
In February 1993, the plaintiff negotiated a collective bargaining agreement with Teamsters and Local 688. Fessenden negotiated on behalf of Teamsters and Local 688. The collective bargaining agreement contained an Addendum which provided that only the plaintiff's employees who were vested with Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Health and Welfare Fund and Central States Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Funds ("Funds") would continue receiving benefits from those funds. Employees not specifically named in the Addendum would be covered through separate insurance and pension plans provided by the plaintiff. The parties to the collective bargaining agreement expressly understood that based on representations made by Fessenden that the plaintiff would have no obligation to contribute to the Funds for employees not listed on the Addendum. In December 1996, the Funds performed an audit in Nebraska on the records of the plaintiff's employees who work in Nebraska and Missouri (filing 24).
In its amended complaint, the plaintiff alleges that Local 688 and the Teamsters have breached the Addendum and thereby violated the Labor Management Relations Act, causing the plaintiff to suffer losses. Moreover, the plaintiff alleges that Fessenden, acting on behalf of Local 688 and Teamsters, knowingly made false representations upon which the plaintiff relied to its detriment. The plaintiff seeks damages and injunctive relief (filing 24).
II. Standard of Review
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), if, on a motion to dismiss for failure of the pleading to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, the movant presents matters outside of the pleadings, the Court shall treat the motion as one for summary judgment and dispose of it as provided by Rule 56, giving all parties a reasonable opportunity to present material pertinent to such motion.
A Court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must view all the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and give the nonmoving party the benefit of all reasonable inferences that the court can draw from the facts. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(b)(c). The moving party bears the responsibility to identify those portions of the record which illustrate the lack of a genuine issue of material fact. If a moving party carries this burden to show the nonexistence of a material fact, the nonmoving party must go beyond the pleadings to the evidence and specify facts establishing a genuine issue of material fact for trial.
III. Discussion
A. Teamsters' Motion to Dismiss
The Teamsters has filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim for which relief may be granted and Rule 12(b)(3) for improper venue (filing 10). The Teamsters claims that the plaintiff has failed to state a claim against it for breach of contract because Teamsters is not a signatory to the contract. The Teamsters also claims that venue in this judicial district is improper.
The plaintiff's claims against the Teamsters arise under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. Section 301 of the LMRA authorizes legal actions for violations of agreements between employers and labor organizations. Teamsters argues that because it was not a signatory to the contract or the addendum, it cannot be held liable for a breach of the labor agreement.
The Court has reviewed the addendum attached to the plaintiff's amended complaint (filing 24), and the Teamsters is not a signatory to the addendum. Rather, only Local 688 was a signatory. Moreover, the affidavits of both Danny Fessenden (filing 30) and Joseph Galli (filing 33) attest that the Teamsters was not a party to the collective bargaining agreement nor did it direct, authorize or ratify any of the other named defendants' actions. (Filing 30, Fessenden Affid. at 3). Moreover, Local 688 has not been under trusteeship or supervision by the International Teamsters Union at any time relevant to the events described in this action. (Filing 33, Galli Affid. at 2). Both affidavits attest that defendant Fessenden is employed as a business representative of Local 688 and has not been employed by the Teamsters.
The defendants have collectively established that the Teamsters was not a party to the contract at issue and conducted no affirmative actions pertaining to the collective bargaining agreement or its addendum. The plaintiff has presented no evidence to the contrary and cannot rest on bare allegations contained in the amended complaint. Having failed to establish the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, the Court shall grant the Teamsters' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.
Defendants Local 688 and Danny Fessenden also move for dismissal for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3). The defendants persuasively argue that venue is improper in Nebraska because none of the defendants were engaged in representing or acting for union members in Nebraska nor did a substantial part of the events giving rise to the lawsuit occur in Nebraska. The record is undisputed that Local 688 was at all relevant times organized and registered in St. Louis, Missouri. Defendant Fessenden is a resident of Hannibal, Missouri. Mr. Fessenden attests that none of the negotiations for the collective bargaining agreement were conducted in Nebraska; rather, all negotiations were conducted in Clarksville, Hannibal and St. Louis, Missouri. (Filing 30, Fessenden Affid. at 4). Moreover, none of the members of Local 688 covered by the terms of the collective bargaining agreement between Local 688 and the plaintiff work or live in Nebraska. (Filing 33, Galli Affid. at 3). Local 688 members employed by the plaintiff work out of a facility located near Hannibal, Missouri. Id.
In opposition to the motion to dismiss for improper venue, the plaintiff contends that the fraud was directed toward its corporate headquarters in Nebraska. The plaintiff also argues that a Funds' audit which uncovered the breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentations was conducted in Nebraska and that any future financial loss will manifest itself in Nebraska. Despite the plaintiff's contentions, the amended complaint and affidavits conclusively establish that the significant events giving rise to the lawsuit occurred in Missouri. Therefore, venue is proper in the Eastern District of Missouri, not in the District of Nebraska. Accordingly, the Court shall enter an order transferring the suit to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED:
Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters' motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim against the Teamsters (filing 10) is granted;
Defendants Teamsters Local Union 688's and Danny Fessenden's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, to transfer the suit to the Eastern District of Missouri (filing 28) is denied in part and granted in part;
The Clerk shall transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri; and
The Clerk shall file the Index of Evidence submitted in support of Plaintiff's Brief in Opposition to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and the Index shall be docketed as an Index of Evidence in Opposition to the Defendant International Brotherhood of Teamsters' Motion to Dismiss.