J.M. Haley Corp. v. M

J.M. HALEY CORP., Plaintiff, v. SHEET METAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION, LOCAL 28,KEVIN CONNOR in his capacity as President of Local 28,BOB DIORIO in his capacity as President/International Trustee of Local 28,JAMES CUIFFO in his capacity as Secretary/Treasurer of Local 28,ROBERT SOTO in his capacity as Secretary/Treasurer of Local 28,and JOHN DOES 1-10, Defendants.

15-CV-1227(JS)(AYS)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

March 7, 2016

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

APPEARANCES

For Plaintiff:

Ira D. Wincott, Esq.

Emanuel Kataev, Esq.

Joseph M. Labuda, Esq.

Milman Labuda Law Group, PLLC

3000 Marcus Avenue, Suite 3W8

Lake Success, NY 11042

For Defendants:

Sheet Metal Workers

International

Association, Local 28,

Kevin Connor, James

Cuiffo, Robert Soto,

and John Does 1-10

Denis A. Engel, Esq.

Colleran, O'Hara & Mills LLP

100 Crossways Park Drive West, Suite 200

Woodbury, NY 11797

Bob Diorio

Amy F. Shulman, Esq.

Broach & Stulberg, LLP

One Penn Plaza, Suite 2016

New York, NY 10119

SEYBERT, District Judge:

This case concerns alleged unlawful labor practices committed by a construction union. Plaintiff J.M. Haley Corp. ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Defendants Sheet Metal Workers' International Association, Local 28 ("Local 28"), Bob Diorio, James Cuiffo, Robert Soto, and ten John Doe Defendants (collectively, "Defendants"), seeking relief pursuant to Section 303 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (the "LMRA"), as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 187, based on Defendants' violations of 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4) of the National Labor Relations Act (the "NLRA"). Both Diorio and the remaining Defendants have filed motions to dismiss the Complaint. (Docket Entries 18, 24.) For the foregoing reasons, Defendants' motions are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

BACKGROUND¹

Plaintiff is a company in the business of installing sheet-metal ductwork in the tri-state area, and Local 28 is a labor organization that represents workers in the construction industry. (Compl. ¶¶ 12, 19.) Connors, Diorio, Cuiffo, and Soto (the "Individual Defendants") are all officers of Local 28, and theJohn Doe defendants are alleged to be unknown agents and members of Local 28 who participated in the conduct at issue. (Compl. ¶¶ 14-18.) Plaintiff's employees are represented by Local 355 of the International Union of Journeymen and Allied Trades ("Local 355"), and not by Local 28. (Compl. ¶ 2.)

In 2008, Local 28 embarked on a campaign of "picketing and boycott activity" in an effort to force construction companies to stop doing business with Plaintiff. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff alleges that Local 28 aimed to ensure that work Plaintiff contracted to perform was ultimately completed by Local 28 members. (Compl. ¶ 2.) More specifically, Plaintiff claims that Defendants engaged in concerted action on six different construction jobs in an effort to capture work for Local 28 members at Plaintiff's expense. (See Compl. ¶¶ 21-79.) Plaintiff's allegations concerning each job are summarized below.

I. The Novotel Contract

On December 10, 2012, Plaintiff contracted with Fleet Mechanical Systems ("Fleet") to provide services in connection with the construction of a Novotel hotel, located at 226 West 52nd Street in New York City. (Compl. ¶ 21.) InterServ LP ("InterServ") was the general contractor for the job. (Compl. ¶ 22.)

Plaintiff alleges that agents of Local 28 repeatedly called InterServ and told them not to use Plaintiff's servicesbecause Local 28 was claiming the Novotel work, and Plaintiff was not a signatory to a collective bargaining agreement with Local 28. (Compl. ¶ 24.) On February 12, 2013, Local 28 engaged in a "general Picket in the lobby of the Novotel job demanding that Novotel and [InterServ] stop using [Plaintiff] and reassign the work to a Local 28 contractor." (Compl. ¶ 25.) The picketers stopped people from entering and exiting the building, and Daniel Fox, Jr., a business agent for Local 28, stated that Local 28 would "pick off" Plaintiff and other contractors that did not use labor belonging to the Building Trades Council, an organization that Local 28 belongs to. (Compl. ¶ 23-26.)

Agents of Local 28 continued to threaten labor unrest unless Plaintiff was terminated from the job. (Compl. ¶ 27.) On February 14, 2013, Local 28 engaged in another general picket of the Novotel job and inflated a fifteen-foot rat balloon near the entrance to the project. (Compl. ¶ 28.) Threats to picket and inflate the rat balloon continued, and on February 21, 2013, Plaintiff was notified by Fleet, Novotel, and InterServ that Plaintiff's contract was terminated due to "Local 28's unlawful threats and coercion." (Compl. ¶¶ 13-33.)

II. The Metadata Solutions Contract

On June 3, 2013, Plaintiff secured a contract to provide its services to Marlin, Inc. ("Marlin") for work on Medidata Solutions' office space, located at 350 Hudson Street in New YorkCity. (Compl. ¶ 35.) JRM Construction ("JRM") was the general contractor on the job and Marlin was the mechanical contractor. (Compl. ¶ 35.)

In August 2013, representatives of Local 28 and two other unions "claimed the Medidata sheet metal work for Local 28" and threatened to picket unless Plaintiff was terminated and the sheet-metal work was reassigned to a Local 28 contractor. (Compl. ¶ 36.)

On August 7, 2013 Local 28 again inflated a rat balloon near the entrance to the job site and picketed around the rat. (Compl. ¶ 38.) The very next day, a Local 28 agent texted Plaintiff that Local 28 was setting up a meeting to recruit Plaintiff's employees. (Compl. ¶ 39.)

III. The New York Presbyterian Hospital Contracts

In April 2012, Plaintiff secured a contract to provide services to Interstate Mechanical Services ("Interstate") on two construction projects for New York Presbyterian Hospital (the "Hospital jobs"). (Compl. ¶¶ 42-43.) Cauldwell Wingate ("Cauldwell") served as the general contractor for the Hospital jobs and Interstate served as the mechanical contractor. (Compl. ¶¶ 44-45.)

In late May or early June 2012, Local 28 "claimed the Hospital job[s] for itself" and threatened both Cauldwell and Interstate with "picketing, job shutdowns, and the inflation of a balloon rat" in an effort to have Plaintiff's contract terminated.(Compl. ¶ 46.) Local 28 subsequently "cause[d] several of its members to patrol near the entrance of the hospital [,] impeding ingress and egress," and distributed a flyer which falsely stated that Plaintiff was an "unsafe contractor." (Compl. ¶¶ 47-48.) Because of Local 28's actions, Cauldwell and Interstate terminated Plaintiff's contract on the Hospital jobs. (Compl. ¶ 52.)

IV. The 101 Avenue of the Americas Contracts

On August 29, 2012, Plaintiff entered into two contracts to provide services to Henick-Lane, Inc. ("Henick") at 101 Avenue of the Americas in New York City. (Compl. ¶¶ 55-56.) Sciame Construction ("Sciame") was the general contractor and Henick was the mechanical contractor. (Compl. ¶¶ 57-58.)

On December 12, 2012, Local 28 once again inflated a rat balloon near the entrance to the building and "engaged in a general picket on the sidewalk." (Compl. ¶¶ 60-61.) The same day, representatives of Local 28 threatened Sciame and demanded that Plaintiff be replaced with a Local 28 contractor. (Compl. ¶ 62.) Sciame and Henick subsequently terminated Plaintiff from the project. (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65.)

V. The Verizon Contract

Plaintiff entered into a contract with GDO Contracting Corp. ("GDO") to provide services at Verizon, located on the seventh floor of 360 Bridge Street in Brooklyn, New York. (Compl. ¶ 68.) On-Trac Construction Associates ("On-Trac") served as thegeneral contractor on the project, and GDO was the mechanical contractor. (Compl. ¶¶ 71-72.)

Local 28 representatives demanded that Plaintiff hire its members to work on the Verizon job and stated their intention to threaten Verizon, On-Trac, and GDO if Plaintiff did not agree to do so. (Compl. ¶ 73.) As a result, Plaintiff hired four members of Local 28 to work on the Verizon job, which resulted in a "substantial increase in labor costs." (Compl. ¶¶ 75, 77.)

Plaintiff claims that Defendants' conduct on the various jobs referenced above constituted "unlawful secondary activity" prohibited by LMRA, and that Defendants tortuously interfered with their contracts on each job. (Compl. at 14-19.) Defendants move to dismiss the Complaint. Diorio principally argues (1) that he cannot be held liable as a union officer under Section 303 for actions taken by Local 28 and (2) that Plaintiff's tortious interference claim is preempted by Section 303. (Diorio Br., Docket Entry 19, at 4-14.) The remaining Defendants reiterate Diorio's arguments regarding individual liability and tortious interference, and add that the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Defs.' Br., Docket Entry 24, at 12-115.)

DISCUSSION

The Court will first address the legal standard before turning to Defendants' motions.

I. Standard of Review

In deciding Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss, the Court applies a "plausibility standard," which is guided by "[t]wo working principles." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009); accord Harris v. Mills, 572 F.3d 66, 71-72 (2d Cir. 2009) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 127 S. Ct. 1955, 167 L. Ed. 2d 929 (2007). First, although the Court must accept all allegations as true, this "tenet" is "inapplicable to legal conclusions;" thus, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S. Ct. at 1949; accord Harris, 572 F.3d at 72. Second, only complaints that state a "plausible claim for relief" can survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S. Ct. at 1950. Determining whether a complaint does so is "a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.; accord Harris, 572 F.3d...