Gen. Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers, Sales & Serv., & Casino Emps., Local Union No. 957 v. Heidelberg Distrib. Co.

GENERAL TRUCK DRIVERS, WAREHOUSEMEN, HELPERS SALES AND SERVICE,AND CASINO EMPLOYEES, TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 957, Plaintiff,

v.HEIDELBERG DISTRIBUTING COMPANY, Defendant.

Case No. 3:11cv420

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION

Dated: March 6, 2013

JUDGE WALTER H. RICE

DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO MAGISTRATE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. #20); ADOPTING THE CONCLUSIONS OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 18); SUSTAINING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #15), TREATED AS A MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS UNDER RULE 12(c); COUNT I OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #11), ARISING UNDER SECTION 301 OF THE LABOR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS ACT, 29 U.S.C. § 185, IS DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; COUNT II OF PLAINTIFF'S AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. #11), FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT UNDER OHIO LAW, IS DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; PLAINTIFF GIVEN LEAVE WITHIN TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS TO FILE A FURTHER AMENDED COMPLAINT AS TO COUNT I, IF DESIRED

Plaintiff General Truck Drivers, Warehousemen, Helpers Sales and Service, and Casino Employees, Teamsters Local Union No. 957 (the "Union"), filed suit against Heidelberg Distributing Company ("Heidelberg"), after Heidelbergdischarged two Union member employees. The Union seeks court-ordered arbitration, or, in the alternative, reinstatement of its members' employment with back wages. The claims arise out of Heidelberg's termination of two of the Union members' employment, allegedly in violation of the collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") between the Union and Heidelberg. The Court's jurisdiction is based on 29 U.S.C. § 185 and 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Court has supplemental jurisdiction, under 28 U.S.C. § 1367, over Plaintiff's state law claim for breach of contract.

Pending before the Court is Heidelberg's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff (Doc #15), brought under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on the reasoning and citations of authority set forth in the Report and Recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge, filed May 17, 201 2 (Doc. # 18), as well as upon a thorough de novo review of this Court's file and the applicable law, the Court adopts the recommendations of said judicial report in their entirety, with the variations in reasoning set forth below. Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. # 20) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations are OVERRULED. Heidelberg's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint of Plaintiff (Doc #15), treated as a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings under Federal Rule 12(c), is SUSTAINED. Count I of the Union's Amended Complaint (Doc. #11) is DISMISSED without prejudice. Count II is preempted, and therefore DISMISSED with prejudice.

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Defendant Heidelberg is a corporation doing business in Ohio, whose employees are represented in collective bargaining by the Plaintiff Union. Amend. Compl. ¶¶ 3-4 (Doc. #11). The parties entered into a CBA valid from October 28, 2007, until February 26, 2011. Id. ¶ 5. Under Article IV of the CBA, Heidelberg could discharge employee members of the Union only for just cause, and only after a hearing held in the presence of a Union officer. Id. ¶ 6. Article VI of the CBA contained a grievance procedure, as well as a requirement that the parties submit unresolved grievances to binding arbitration. Id. ¶ 7. Before the expiration of the CBA on February 26, 2011, the Union and Heidelberg began negotiating a new CBA. Id. ¶ 8.

Stephen Kleismit, Jr. ("Kleismit") was a Heidelberg employee and member of the Union, and was discharged by Heidelberg in an August 25, 2011, letter accusing him of stealing company time. Id. ¶ 9. Four days later, Kleismit filed a grievance with the Union, alleging that Heidelberg terminated him without just cause, in violation of the CBA. Id. ¶ 10. Pursuant to the provisions of the CBA, the Union referred Kleismit's grievance to arbitration on September 8, 2011. Id. ¶ 11. However, five days later, Heidelberg refused to submit the grievance to arbitration, stating that it had no obligation under the CBA to comply with the grievance procedure, because the CBA had lapsed. Id. ¶ 12, Ex. I (Doc. #11 at 51).

A similar sequence of events occurred pertaining to the discharge of Dennis Snyder ("Snyder"). Amend. Compl. ¶ 13 (Doc. #11). Snyder received a termination letter from Heidelberg on June 30, 2011. Id. He filed a grievance on July 6, 2011, challenging the termination as without just cause, which the Union stated it was processing by arbitration on July 26, 2011. Id. ¶¶ 14-1 5. Heidelberg took the same position with Snyder that it took with Kleismit, and informed him by letter on August 4, 2011, that it refused to process his grievance by arbitration because it had no longer had any contractual obligation under the CBA to do so. Id. ¶ 16.

On October 27, 2011, the Union brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County, Ohio, alleging that Heidelberg had breached the CBA, in violation of Ohio law. Doc. #2. On November 23, 2011, Heidelberg removed that action to this Court, alleging federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Doc. #1. Heidelberg answered the Union's complaint on December 1, 2011. Doc. #4.

The Union sought leave to amend its complaint on February 15, 2012 (Doc. #10), which the Court granted. In Count I of its Amended Complaint, filed on February 16, 2012, the Union alleged a claim for Heidelberg's violation of the CBA, arising under the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a). Count II of the Union's Amended Complaint alleged the claim, under Ohio law, for breach of contract that it had alleged in its original complaint. Doc. #11.Heidelberg filed an Answer to the Union's Amended Complaint on February 23, 2012.

Heidelberg followed its Answer with its Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint of Plaintiff, filed on March 14, 2012, under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #15. Therein, Heidelberg argued that the Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the Union's claims, and that the Amended Complaint failed to state claims upon which relief could be granted. The Union filed a Response in Opposition to Heidelberg's motion on April 9, 2012 (Doc. #16), to which Heidelberg filed its Reply in Response on April 23, 2012 (Doc. #17).

The matter was referred to Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz, who issued a Report and Recommendations on May 17, 2012. Doc. #18. Therein, Judge Merz recommended dismissal of the Union's LMRA claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted, and dismissal of the state law claim as preempted by federal law. Doc. #18. The Union filed an Objection to Judge Merz's Report and Recommendations on June 11, 2012 (Doc. #20), to which Heidelberg filed a Response on June 28, 2012 (Doc. #21). The Union filed its Reply to Heidelberg's Response on July 12, 2012. Doc. #22.

Heidelberg's Motion to Dismiss presents two arguments for dismissal of the Union's claims. Doc. #15. First, the company claims that the CBA's expiration precludes any action brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, 29 U.S.C. § 185, arising from actions that occurred after the CBA's expiration, and that the Unionhas consequently failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Id. at 5. Second, Heidelberg argues, based upon two different theories of preemption, that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over both the Union's federal claim under the LMRA and the Union's state law breach of contract claim. Doc. #15 at 7-10.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a Federal District Court may refer "any pretrial matter pending before" it to a Magistrate Judge, with certain enumerated exceptions, including motions for judgments on the pleadings and motions to dismiss. However, Section 636(b)(1)(B) authorizes referral of such excepted motions to a Magistrate Judge for "proposed findings of fact and recommendations for the disposition" by the Federal District Court. The parties are notified of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations, and have the opportunity to file objections. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). When a Federal District Court refers a dispositive motion to a Magistrate Judge under § 636(b)(1)(B), it must conduct a de novo review of that judicial officer's determinations. See United States v. Raddatz, 447 U.S. 667, 673-74 (1980); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001).

Judge Merz's Report and Recommendations recommends dismissal of Count I, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Doc. #18. Furthermore, Judge Merz recommends dismissal of Count II (the state law claim), with prejudice, based upon one of the preemption doctrines put forthby Heidelberg. Id. The Court will conduct a de novo review of Judge Merz's recommendations, while addressing the Objections filed by the Union.

Given that "[c]ustomarily, a federal court first resolves doubts about its jurisdiction over the subject matter," the Court will begin by addressing its subject matter jurisdiction and Heidelberg's preemption arguments before turning to the other arguments for dismissal. Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574, 578 (1999).

II. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION

Heidelberg challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction in a motion ostensibly made under Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Doc. #15. However, Rule 12(b) requires that a party assert the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction by motion before filing a responsive pleading. Here, Heidelberg filed its motion several weeks after filing an answer to the Union's Amended Complaint. See Doc. #12 & Doc. #15. However, a party does not waive a defense based on subject matter jurisdiction by failing to raise it by motion before filing a response pleading. F. R. Civ. P....