Bhd. of Maint. of Way Employes Division/IBT v. Union Pac. R.R. Co.

485 F.Supp.3d 1048

BROTHERHOOD OF MAINTENANCE OF WAY EMPLOYES DIVISION/IBT, Plaintiff,

v.UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant.

8:19-CV-466

United States District Court, D. Nebraska.

Signed July 1, 2020

Richard S. Edelman, Mooney, Green Law Firm, Washington, DC, Robert E. O'Connor, Jr., O'Connor & Associates, Omaha, NE, for Plaintiff.

Christopher R. Hedican, Baird, Holm Law Firm, Omaha, NE, Donald J. Munro, Pro Hac Vice, Nikki L. McArthur, Pro Hac Vice, Jones, Day Law Firm, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Brian C. Buescher, United States District Judge

This matter came before the Court on Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay. Filing 11. A videoconference hearing on Defendant's motions took place on June 4, 2020. See Filing 29. Plaintiff, Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes Division/IBT ("BMWED"), and Defendant, Union Pacific Railroad Company ("Union Pacific"), each appeared by counsel. Having reviewed the pleadings, original and supplemental briefing, original and supplemental evidence, and arguments of the parties, the Court grants Union Pacific's Motion to Transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

I. BACKGROUND¹

A. Factual Basis

BMWED is "an unincorporated labor association" headquartered in Michigan. Filing 1 at 1-2. Union Pacific is a Nebraska-based rail carrier that conducts rail operations throughout "the Western portion of the United States." Filing 1 at 2. BMWED is the collective-bargaining representative for all Union Pacific employees "working in the class or craft of maintenance of way employee." Filing 1 at 2.

As the collective-bargaining representative for these Union Pacific employees, BMWED negotiates collective-bargaining agreements. Filing 1 at 4. Such agreements are bargained-for under the Railway Labor Act ("RLA"), 45 U.S.C. § 151, et seq. Filing 1 at 3. Rather than negotiating completely new agreements, Union Pacific and BMWED periodically amend the underlying collective-bargaining agreements. Filing 1 at 3. When a party seeks to amend an agreement, it must provide written notice of the changes sought to the other involved parties. Filing 1 at 3 (citing 45 U.S.C. § 156 ). The parties must then negotiate the proposed terms. Filing 1 at 3. Sometimes the parties form coalitions for these negotiations, such as various unions banding together to bargain with a single rail carrier or multiple carriers uniting to bargain with a single union. Filing 1 at 5. The rail carriers often bargain collectively as the National Carriers’ Conference Committee ("NCCC").² Filing 1 at 5.

BMWED has previously negotiated amendments to several collective-bargaining agreements with Union Pacific via the NCCC, and those amendments established a moratorium on further changes until November 1, 2019. Filing 1 at 5-6. Many of those prior negotiations occurred in Washington, D.C. at the NRLC's offices until the NRLC relocated to Arlington, Virginia in 2015.³ Filing 26-1 at 3. However, future negotiations and mediations are not guaranteed to occur in Washington, D.C. Filing 28-1 at 2-3.

At the time of filing, BMWED intended to serve written notice on Union Pacific "seek[ing] changes in various work rules under the different BMWED[–Union Pacific] agreements."⁴ Filing 1 at 6. BMWED would prefer to bargain directly with Union Pacific and not the NCCC but anticipates Union Pacific will oppose "single carrier" bargaining and instead seek to bargain in conjunction with the NCCC. Filing 1 at 6.

In fact, in early 2019, Union Pacific sent representatives to Washington, D.C. to meet with other railroad members of the NRLC to decide whether or not to authorize the NCCC to bargain on their behalf in the upcoming negotiations. Filing 26-1 at 3. Those meetings occurred on February 28, 2019, and May 23, 2019, at "425 3^rd St SW in Washington, D.C." Filing 26-1 at 3; Filing 26-2 at 3. During those meetings, Union Pacific authorized the NCCC to nationally handle bargaining on its behalf with BMWED. Filing 26-1 at 3. However, BMWED did not participate in and was not aware of these meetings. Filing 28-1 at 2.

B. Procedural History

On October 23, 2019, BMWED filed this action seeking declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 - 02. Filing 1 at 2. BMWED alleges two causes of action for violations of the RLA based on BMWED's belief that Union Pacific will refuse to bargain directly with BMWED and will instead seek to negotiate in combination with other railroad carriers. Filing 1 at 6-8. BMWED seeks a declaration that (1) Union Pacific's anticipated refusal to bargain as a single carrier would violate several sections of the RLA, and (2) Union Pacific must individually bargain with BMWED. Filing 1 at 9. BMWED also asks this Court to enjoin Union Pacific from refusing to bargain individually and grant BMWED costs and attorneys’ fees. Filing 1 at 9.

On December 26, 2019, Union Pacific filed a Motion to Dismiss, Transfer, or Stay seeking three alternate outcomes. Filing 11. First, Union Pacific asks the Court to dismiss this action based on two separate grounds: issue preclusion and failure to join necessary parties. Filing 12 at 7-14. In the alternative, Union Pacific asks the Court to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (the "D.C. Court") for efficient adjudication of the issues before a judge with experience pertaining to the issues involved and in a forum that allows all relevant parties to participate. Filing 12 at 15-18. In support of transfer, Union Pacific points out that the ultimate question presented by this case, whether Union Pacific is legally barred from negotiating as a member of a coalition with BMWED, is being litigated in United States District Courts in Nebraska, Michigan, Tennessee, and Washington, D.C.⁵ Filing 12 at 6. Union Pacific argues the case filed in Washington, D.C. by all twenty-six interested railroads is the most appropriate vehicle for resolution of this matter because it is the only case and jurisdiction that involves and can involve BMWED and all of the railroads. Filing 12 at 15-18.

Union Pacific further asks the Court to stay this case "pending the outcome of the D.C. litigation" if the Court declines to dismiss or transfer. Filing 12 at 18-21.

BMWED opposes Union Pacific's Motion to Dismiss, arguing that (1) itself and Union Pacific are the only necessary parties and (2) its claims are not issue-precluded because they present pure questions of law, the law has changed, the facts have changed, and issue preclusion is inequitable in this instance. Filing 17 at 17-27. BMWED also opposes the alternative requests to transfer or stay. Filing 17 at 27-32. With respect to transfer, BMWED argues it was first to file, and as such, its choice of venue should not be disturbed. Filing 17 at 27-32. Finally, BMWED also opposes a stay, arguing Union Pacific's arguments for dismissal are likely to fail and pointing out BMWED has moved for dismissal of the railroads’ case in the D.C. Court. Filing 17 at 32.

On May 14, 2020, the Court set the matter for a hearing on Union Pacific's pending motion and requested supplemental briefing and evidence. Filing 22. In response, the parties filed additional briefs and evidence. Filing 25; Filing 26; Filing 27; Filing 28. The hearing was held on June 4, 2020, and the Court heard argument from both parties. Filing 29. For the reasons stated herein, the Court declines to rule on the motion to dismiss, denies Union Pacific's request to stay this matter, and grants Union Pacific's Motion to Transfer.

II. DISCUSSION

A. Motion to Dismiss

Union Pacific asks the Court to dismiss this action based on two separate grounds: issue preclusion and failure to join necessary parties. Filing 12 at 7-14. In particular, Union Pacific argues issue preclusion bars this action because the Honorable Thomas F. Hogan's ruling in Alton & S. Ry. Co. v. Bhd. of Maint. Way Employes , 928 F. Supp. 7 (D.D.C. 1996), is a valid judgment on the actually litigated merits of the same question raised here. Filing 12 at 7-9. Union Pacific also seeks dismissal on the basis that the other rail carriers are necessary parties that cannot be joined because this Court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. Filing 12 at 10-14.

As previously noted, this case involves the same question of law that is presented in three nearly identical cases filed by BMWED in two other federal district courts before three other federal judges. See Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emp. Div., IBT v. Consol. Rail Corp. , No. 2:19-cv-13112 (E.D. Mich. Oct. 23, 2019) at Filing 1; Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emp. Div./IBT v. Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , No. 3:19-cv-420 (E.D. Tenn. Oct. 24, 2019) at Filing 1; Bhd. of Maint. of Way Emp. Div./IBT v. Canadian Nat'l Ry., et al. , No. 4:19-cv-13246 (E.D. Mich. Nov. 4, 2019) at Filing 6. Similar motions to dismiss, transfer, or stay are or were also pending in each of these other three cases. See Consol. Rail Corp. , No. 2:19-cv-13112 at Filing 6, Filing 7; Norfolk S. Ry. Co. , No. 3:19-cv-420 at Filing 15, Filing 16;⁶ Canadian Nat'l Ry., et al. , No. 4:19-cv-13246 at Filing 6, Filing 13.⁷ Further, Union Pacific and the other members of the NRLC filed suit against BMWED in the D.C. Court seeking to address the same legal question presented by the BMWED cases. See Filing 13-1.

While Union Pacific primarily asks this Court to dismiss BMWED's Complaint, the Court acknowledges that questions of issue preclusion and failure to join necessary parties are pending before four separate federal district court judges. If each of the four judges rules on dismissal, the potential for conflicting rulings arises and the unnecessary duplication of judicial efforts is assured. See GMAC/Residential Funding Corp. v. Platinum Co. of Real Estate & Fin. Servs. , No. CIV.02-1224 RHK/AJB, 2003 WL 1572007, at *2 (D. Minn. Mar. 13, 2003) (citing 17 Moore's Federal Practice § 111.13[1][o]) ("Judicial economy is served by allowing related actions to...