Ronnie Kaufman v. Pacific Maritime Association, et al.

Opinion

1 2 3 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RONNIE KAUFMAN, Case No. 23-cv-06694-MMC

8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 9 v. MOTION TO DISMISS; DISMISSING FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 10 PACIFIC MARITIME ASSOCIATION, et WITHOUT FURTHER LEAVE TO al., AMEND 11 Defendants. 12 13 Before the Court is defendants Pacific Maritime Association ("PMA") and 14 International Longshore and Warehouse Union's ("ILWU") Motion, filed July 5, 2024, "to 15 Dismiss Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint." Plaintiff Ronnie Kaufman ("Kaufman"), who 16 proceeds pro se, has not filed opposition.1 Having read and considered the papers filed 17 in support of the motion, the Court deems the matter suitable for decision thereon, 18 VACATES the hearing scheduled for August 9, 2024, and rules as follows. 19 In his First Amended Complaint, Kaufman challenges a "Letter of Understanding" 20 ("LOU") between PMA and ILWU Local 34, which LOU pertains to the manner in which 21 "clerks" are hired "in the San Francisco Bay Area." (See FAC Ex. 1.) According to 22 Kaufman, the subject LOU was "fraudulent" when it was signed on March 3, 2015, and 23 thus "was never authorized," for the asserted reason that it is not signed by the President 24 and CEO of PMA and by the President of ILWU.2 (See FAC at 6.) Kaufman also alleges 25 1Pursuant to the Civil Local Rules of this District, any opposition was due "not 26 more than 14 days after the motion was filed." See Civil L. R. 7-3(a). 27 2 The LOU is signed by the Northern California Area Manager of PMA and by the 1 that the membership of ILWU Local 34, on October 21, 2021, voted to terminate the LOU 2 as of July 1, 2022, the date the most recent collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") 3 became effective (see FAC at 4, 7), and that thereafter defendants "conspired and 4 colluded" to keep the LOU in effect (see FAC at 5). Based on said allegations, Kaufman 5 asserts, as against PMA, a claim for breach of contract, namely, breach of the CBA (see 6 FAC at 8), and, as against ILWU, a claim for breach of the duty of fair representation. 7 By order filed May 16, 2024, the Court dismissed Kaufman's claims, as alleged in 8 the initial Complaint, for the reason that Kaufman failed to allege facts to support a finding 9 (1) that he has standing to challenge the LOU, (2) that PMA's conduct constituted a 10 breach of any provision in the CBA, and (3) that ILWU engaged in a breach of its duty of 11 fair representation. Defendants, by the instant motion, argue the FAC likewise is subject 12 to dismissal. 13 At the outset, the Court addresses Kaufman's standing. A plaintiff, to have 14 standing to bring a claim, must allege facts demonstrating the existence of an "injury in 15 fact" that is "traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant." See Spokeo, Inc. v. 16 Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (internal quotation, ellipses, and citation omitted). The 17 initial complaint included no facts as to how the LOU affects Kaufman. In the FAC, 18 Kaufman now alleges that the LOU "has been detrimental and harmful in effect to [him] re 19 – promotion's [sic] pay and wages, [and] seniority rights," and that, in particular, "steady 20 clerks working under the LOU" make "over 150,000 thousand dollars more a year" than 21 "hall dispatch clerks" earn. (See FAC at 21.) Liberally construed, the FAC appears to 22 allege hall dispatch clerks, such as Kaufman, earn significantly less income each year as 23 a result of additional work opportunities being made available to steady clerks under the 24 LOU, which allegations the Court finds sufficient to allege standing. See Erickson v 25 .Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (holding "pro se" complaint is to be "liberally construed" 26 and "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"). 27 Nevertheless, Kaufman's claims again fail. First, although Kaufman alleges PMA 1 PMA's President and CEO (see FAC at 5), Kaufman fails to identify any such contractual 2 || provision, and, indeed, the CBA in effect at the time the LOU was signed contains no 3 || such provision (see Defs.' Req. for Judicial Notice Ex. 3), nor does the CBA in effect at 4 || the time the instant action was filed contain such a provision (see id. Ex. 1).? Similarly, 5 || Kaufman's claim against ILWU is deficient, as said claim is based on the theory that 6 ILWU was "fully aware" the LOU was not signed by the President of ILWU (see FAC at 7 5), and there is no provision in either the prior CBA or the present CBA requiring such 8 || signature. 9 Accordingly, defendants' motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and the FAC is 10 || hereby DISMISSED without further leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to 11 close the file. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED.

13 . 14 || Dated: July 30, 2024 . INE M. CHESNEY United States District Judge

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > Defendants' request for judicial notice of the CBAs is hereby GRANTED. See 27 || Densmore v. Mission Linen Supply, 164 F. Supp. 3d 1180, 1187 (E.D. Cal. 2016) (taking judicial notice of contents of CBA for purposes of evaluating motion to dismiss claims 2g || arguably covered by CBA).