McClain v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

Ninth Circuit

McClain v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

69 F. App'x 369

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedJune 18, 2003

DocketNos. 02-36047, 02-36098

StatusPublished

This text of 69 F. App'x 369 (McClain v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

McClain v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers, 69 F. App'x 369 (9th Cir. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

**

Charles V. McClain, III, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action filed pursuant to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 751 (“the Union”) cross-appeals the district court’s order denying the Union’s request for attorneys fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal, Howard v. America Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2000), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of attorneys fees, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McClain’s claim under Title I of the LMRDA because McClain challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed. See Casumpang v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142, 269 F.3d 1042, 1056 (9th Cir.2001) (Title I relief is not available when a union member challenges the validity of a completed election).

The district court properly dismissed McClain’s RICO claim because he failed to allege an act that is independently wrongful under RICO. See Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 505-06, 120 S.Ct. 1608, 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000).

McClain’s remaining contentions lack merit.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Union’s request for attorneys fees. See Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 405.

We grant McClain’s motion requesting judicial notice filed on April 18, 2003, and we deny appellee’s motion to strike filed on April 25, 2003.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [371]*371courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

MEMORANDUM

**

Charles V. McClain, III, appeals pro se the district court’s judgment dismissing his action filed pursuant to the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”). The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, District 751 (“the Union”) cross-appeals the district court’s order denying the Union’s request for attorneys fees. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo the dismissal, Howard v. America Online Inc., 208 F.3d 741, 746 (9th Cir. 2000), and we review for abuse of discretion the denial of attorneys fees, Cooter & Gell v. Hartmarx Corp., 496 U.S. 384, 405, 110 S.Ct. 2447, 110 L.Ed.2d 359 (1990). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed McClain’s claim under Title I of the LMRDA because McClain challenges the validity of an election that has already been completed. See Casumpang v. Int’l Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union, Local 142, 269 F.3d 1042, 1056 (9th Cir.2001) (Title I relief is not available when a union member challenges the validity of a completed election).

The district court properly dismissed McClain’s RICO claim because he failed to allege an act that is independently wrongful under RICO. See Beck v. Prupis, 529 U.S. 494, 505-06, 120 S.Ct. 1608, 146 L.Ed.2d 561 (2000).

McClain’s remaining contentions lack merit.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the Union’s request for attorneys fees. See Cooter & Gell, 496 U.S. at 405.

We grant McClain’s motion requesting judicial notice filed on April 18, 2003, and we deny appellee’s motion to strike filed on April 25, 2003.

AFFIRMED.

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the [371]*371courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

69 F. App'x 369, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mcclain-v-international-assn-of-machinists-aerospace-workers-ca9-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack