252 F. Supp. 3d 1132
D.N.M.2017Background
- Firebird Structures (NM LLC) alleges the Carpenters’ Union mounted an organizing campaign that included fliers, bannering, approaching employees, and alleged property damage (screws under tires, a broken rear windshield), and that 28 employees left soon after union contact. Firebird seeks to enjoin the union from harassment, property damage, and interference with contracts.
- Firebird filed in state court; the union removed to federal court on complete-preemption grounds. Firebird then amended its complaint to add a federal claim under LMRA § 303 (29 U.S.C. § 187).
- The union opposed injunctive relief, arguing the Norris–LaGuardia Act restricts federal injunctive power in labor disputes, the union’s conduct is protected NLRA activity, and Firebird failed to show the union authorized any unlawful acts by “clear proof.”
- At a TRO hearing the court heard testimony about bannering, handbilling, union presence at job sites, alleged surveillance, and some instances of vandalism; the union denied authorizing unlawful acts and pointed to protected concerted activity.
- The court concluded it had federal-question jurisdiction (LMRA § 303) and supplemental jurisdiction over state tort claims, but denied the TRO.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction: may federal court hear the case after removal and amendment? | Firebird: amended complaint asserts LMRA § 303 federal claim; federal jurisdiction exists. | Union: removal was proper; jurisdiction questioned but moot after amendment. | Court: exercised jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1367 because Firebird added a § 303 claim. |
| Applicability of Norris–LaGuardia Act to TRO request | Firebird: its state tort claims should be adjudicated under state standards; Norris–LaGuardia should not bar redress for unlawful torts. | Union: Norris–LaGuardia controls; plaintiff must meet stringent statutory requirements and the “clear proof” standard. | Court: Norris–LaGuardia applies because the dispute "involves or grows out of a labor dispute," so statutory injunction limits and §6 clear-proof rule apply. |
| Availability of injunction on LMRA § 303 claim | Firebird: seeks injunctive relief to stop union campaign and related torts. | Union: § 303 provides damages, not injunctive relief; NLRB has exclusive power to seek injunctive relief over certain NLRA violations. | Court: § 303 does not authorize private injunctive relief — only damages — so TRO cannot be granted on the § 303 claim. |
| State tort claims (trespass, nuisance, harassment, prima facie tort, tortious interference) | Firebird: state torts protect its business and property; injunctive relief warranted to prevent ongoing harm. | Union: tortious-interference claims preempted by § 303 where not grounded in violence; many asserted acts are NLRA-protected (picketing, publicity, patrolling) and Norris–LaGuardia bars injunction unless clear proof of union authorization. | Court: tortious-interference claims are preempted by § 303 (absent violence); for trespass/nuisance/harassment/prima facie tort plaintiff failed to meet Norris–LaGuardia §6 clear-proof requirement and many alleged acts are immune from injunction under §4; overall PI factors weigh against TRO. |
Key Cases Cited
- Garmon v. San Diego Bd. of Trustees, 359 U.S. 236 (1959) (federal labor law preemption governs state regulation of activity that the NLRA protects)
- Gibbs v. United Mine Workers, 383 U.S. 715 (1966) (Norris–LaGuardia §6 applies to federal adjudication of state tort claims arising from labor disputes; clear-proof standard)
- Local 20, Teamsters v. Morton, 377 U.S. 252 (1964) (LMRA §303 and NLRA §8(b)(4) create the federal scheme governing secondary activity and limit state-law recovery absent violence)
- Burlington N. R. Co. v. Brotherhood of Maint. of Way Employees, 481 U.S. 429 (1987) (NLRB has exclusive authority to seek injunctions for certain NLRA violations; private parties generally cannot obtain injunctions for secondary activity)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal-question jurisdiction ordinarily depends on plaintiff’s properly pleaded claim)
- Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (plaintiff must show likelihood of success and likely irreparable harm to obtain preliminary injunction)
- Fry v. Airline Pilots Ass’n, 88 F.3d 831 (10th Cir. 1996) (explains the Norris–LaGuardia Act §6 clear-proof standard and limits on union vicarious liability)
- San Antonio Cmty. Hosp. v. Southern Cal. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 125 F.3d 1230 (9th Cir. 1997) (section 303 provides damages only; injunctions for secondary boycotts are not available to private employers)