495 F.Supp.3d 52
D. Mass.2020Background
- In 2018 Hogan and Shannon George contested Local 170’s Secretary-Treasurer election; five anonymous disparaging letters about George were mailed to Local 170.
- Worcester Police’s latent‑print unit matched a print on one letter to Hogan; police interviewed George and Hogan and sought a criminal harassment summons against Hogan, but a Clerk Magistrate found no probable cause and the police later withdrew an appeal.
- George filed parallel union charges against Hogan; Local 170 held a July 20, 2018 hearing in Hogan’s absence, found him guilty and expelled him on July 24, 2018.
- Hogan exhausted internal appeals: Joint Council 10 upheld the expulsion, but the IBT’s General Executive Board later reversed the expulsion in December 2018.
- Hogan sued George and Local 170 alleging: breach of contract (IBT Constitution/§301 LMRA), retaliation (LMRDA), abuse of process, malicious prosecution, and defamation; defendants moved to dismiss several counts.
- The court granted dismissal of Counts II (retaliation), III (abuse of process) and V (defamation), and denied dismissal of Count I (breach of contract) and Count IV (malicious prosecution).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Breach of contract (IBT Constitution/§301 LMRA) | Hogan: Local 170 violated Article XIX by disciplining/expelling him while criminal appeal was pending and denying procedural safeguards | Defs: Hogan lacks standing for local by‑laws claims; Hogan fails to identify specific contractual provision and facts showing breach; George not liable for Board acts | Denied dismissal: Hogan plausibly alleged breach of the IBT Constitution (Article XIX) given parallel criminal proceedings and subsequent withdrawal of appeal |
| Retaliation (LMRDA §411(a)(5)) | Hogan: Criminal and union charges were motivated by retaliation for his candidacy/speech | Defs: §411(a)(5) protects procedural fairness not motive; plaintiff alleges no denial of notice or a fair hearing | Granted dismissal: §411(a)(5) does not create a retaliation claim absent a deprivation of the statute’s procedural protections |
| Abuse of process | Hogan: Defs used criminal process illegitimately to harass and harm him | Defs: Police, not defendants, instituted criminal proceedings; Hogan fails to plead the requisite illegitimate purpose and specifics | Granted dismissal: Plaintiff failed to plead abuse of process adequately because the criminal prosecution was initiated by police using independent judgment |
| Malicious prosecution | Hogan: Defs initiated baseless criminal prosecution with malice; prosecution ended in his favor | Defs: Insufficient facts to show defendants initiated the prosecution or acted maliciously | Denied dismissal: Hogan pleaded enough facts at this early stage to proceed on malicious prosecution; parties may develop the record |
| Defamation | Hogan: Defs published false statements to union membership and the public that damaged his reputation | Defs: Pleading lacks specificity required under Massachusetts law; statements that he was expelled are not materially false; LMRDA preempts absent actual malice and actual harm | Granted dismissal: Allegations were too vague on who said what when; plaintiff failed to provide sufficient factual particularity to state a plausible defamation claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must state a plausible entitlement to relief)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (courts must draw on experience and common sense to assess plausibility)
- Clorox Co. v. Proctor & Gamble Commer. Co., 228 F.3d 24 (court may consider documents integral to the complaint)
- Yacubian v. United States, 750 F.3d 100 (when an attached writing contradicts pleadings, the exhibit controls)
- Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co., 480 F.3d 579 (plaintiff must plead breach with substantial specificity)
- Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc., 369 Mass. 38 (elements of abuse of process)
- Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC v. Mahlowitz, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 29 (malicious prosecution and abuse of process standards)
- Conway v. Smerling, 37 Mass. App. Ct. 1 (private person not liable where police exercise independent judgment in pursuing charges)
- Miller v. City of Boston, 297 F. Supp. 2d 361 (elements required to state malicious prosecution claim)