Casey Muldoon v. Teamsters Local 572

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• Decided: December 5, 2024
• Docket: 23-55448
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

FILED NOT FOR PUBLICATION DEC 5 2024 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CASEY ALLAN MULDOON; DANIEL No. 23-55448 JASON BERGER; ELIAS E. KOTSIOS; JOHN ANTHONY RADINE, D.C. No. 2:22-cv-00161-DSF-JPR Plaintiffs-Appellants,

v. MEMORANDUM*

TEAMSTERS LOCAL 572; INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS,

Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California Dale S. Fischer, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 5, 2024** San Francisco, California

Before: O’SCANNLAIN, FERNANDEZ, and SILVERMAN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). Casey Muldoon, Daniel Berger, Elias Kotsias, and John Radine (Plaintiffs)

appeal pro se from the district court’s dismissal of their action against Teamsters

Local 572 (Union) and the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (International

Brotherhood).1 Plaintiffs alleged that the Union and International Brotherhood

breached their duty of fair representation and improperly disciplined them.

Reviewing de novo,2 we affirm.

The district court correctly determined that Plaintiffs’ first duty of fair

representation claim was untimely. See DelCostello v. Int’l Brotherhood of

Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164–65, 170–72, 103 S. Ct. 2281, 2290–91, 2293–94, 76

L. Ed. 2d 476 (1983); see also 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Plaintiffs agree that claim

accrued when the collective bargaining agreement was fully executed, which they

alleged3 occurred on April 23, 2021, and which date is consistent with the record.

1 We dismiss the appeals by Plaintiffs Berger, Kotsias, and Radine, who failed to file appellate briefs. See 9th Cir. R. 42-1; N/S Corp. v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co., 127 F.3d 1145, 1146–47 (9th Cir. 1997). We reject Plaintiff Muldoon’s attempt to do so on their behalf. See C.E. Pope Equity Tr. v. United States, 818 F.2d 696, 697 (9th Cir. 1987); Russell v. United States, 308 F.2d 78, 78–79 (9th Cir. 1962) (per curiam). 2 See United Steel Workers Local 12-369 v. United Steel Workers Int’l, 728 F.3d 1107, 1114 (9th Cir. 2013); Johnson v. Lucent Techs. Inc., 653 F.3d 1000, 1005 (9th Cir. 2011). 3 See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949–50, 173 L. Ed. 2d 868 (2009). 2 Plaintiffs’ filing of this action on November 23, 2021, was thus too late. The

district court correctly refused to estop the Union from relying upon a statute of

limitations defense because Plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that they

reasonably relied upon any Union misconduct. See Huseman v. Icicle Seafoods,

Inc., 471 F.3d 1116, 1122, 1124 (9th Cir. 2006); Guerrero v. Gates, 442 F.3d 697,

706–07 (9th Cir. 2006); see also 29 U.S.C. §§ 414, 415.

The district court correctly dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims for improper

discipline for failing to state a claim. See 29 U.S.C. §§ 411(a)(5), 529. The

Union’s negotiation of a new collective bargaining agreement with the employer

that omitted a category of workers (including the Plaintiffs) from the Union did not

amount to “‘discipline’” within the meaning of § 411(a)(5) or § 529 because it was

not “punishment authorized by the union . . . to enforce its rules.” Breininger v.

Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Loc. Union No. 6, 493 U.S. 67, 91, 110 S. Ct. 424,

438–39, 107 L. Ed. 2d 388 (1989); see United Brotherhood of Carpenters v. Bldg.

& Constr. Trades Dep’t, 770 F.3d 834, 844–45 (9th. Cir. 2014). There is no

suggestion that the Plaintiffs violated any union rules—on the contrary, Plaintiffs

allege they have always been union members in good standing. See Breininger,

493 U.S. at 91–92, 110 S. Ct. at 439. For the same reason, the new collective

bargaining agreement terms did not expel the Plaintiffs from the Union within the

3 meaning of § 411(a)(5) or § 529. See United Brotherhood of Carpenters, 770 F.3d

at 844–45; see also Breininger, 493 U.S. at 90 & n.13, 91–92, 110 S. Ct. at 438 &

n.13, 439; cf. Walnut Creek Honda Assocs. 2, Inc. v. NLRB, 89 F.3d 645, 648 (9th

Cir. 1996).

In light of the disposition of Plaintiffs’ claims against the Union, the district

court also properly dismissed their claims against the International Brotherhood.

We do not consider arguments or claims raised for the first time on appeal or

matters not specifically and distinctly raised and argued in the opening brief. See

Padgett v. Wright, 587 F.3d 983, 985 & n.2 (9th Cir. 2009) (per curiam).

AFFIRMED.