Hooks v. Remington Lodging & Hospitality, LLC
8 F. Supp. 3d 1178
D. Alaska2014Background
- Regional Director Hooks seeks a §10(j) injunction on behalf of the Board against Remington Lodging & Hospitality for alleged ULPs at The Sheraton Anchorage; Remington moves to dismiss.
- This is Remington II; ALJ McCarrick found multiple ULPs in Remington II and the Board later adopted the Meyerson findings in Remington I/II?; petitions and orders progressed through ALJ decisions and Board review.
- Acting General Counsel Solomon was designated in 2010; he issued the underlying complaints despite not being Senate-confirmed; Solomon’s status became central after nomination in 2011 and 2012.
- Remington argued the complaints were invalid due to lack of Board quorum and Solomon’s appointment; the FVRA and 3(d) authority were disputed; the court addresses whether the complaints are enforceable and whether §10(j) relief is proper.
- The Court rejects the dismissal for lack of authority/quorum, finds Solomon’s complaints enforceable under §3(d) and FVRA, and grants the §10(j) injunction after evaluating likelihood of success, irreparable harm, and public interest.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority of the Acting GC to issue complaints without a valid Board quorum | Hooks: GC has final authority under §3(d) regardless of quorum | Remington: FVRA/3345(b) limits acting officials after nomination; quorum matters | Remington's motion to dismiss denied |
| Likelihood of success on the merits of the ULP charges in §10(j) petition | Board will likely prevail on ULP findings | Remington challenges specific ULPs and overall likelihood | Petition shows likelihood of success; ALJ McCarrick findings supported by Board authorization |
| Irreparable harm and public interest balance for granting §10(j) relief | Irreparable harm shown by ongoing ULPs and disruption of bargaining; public interest favors prompt relief | Delay and potential alternatives (e.g., §10(e) remedies) lessen need for injunction | Irreparable harm established; public interest supported; balance favors injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Nguyen v. United States, 539 U.S. 69 (2003) (de facto officer doctrine recognized; collateral vs direct attack considerations)
- McDermott v. Ampersand Publ’g, LLC, 593 F.3d 950 (9th Cir. 2010) (delay not automatically fatal to injunction; depends on circumstances)
- Frankl v. HTH Corp., 650 F.3d 1334 (9th Cir. 2011) (delay and ongoing harms can support interim relief; strong public policy in NLRA context)
- NLRB v. Enterprise Leasing Co. SE, LLC, 722 F.3d 609 (4th Cir. 2013) (quorum issues affecting Board orders; relevance to analogous arguments)
- NLRB v. New Vista Nursing & Rehab., 719 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2013) (quorum/appointments context; administrative actions under review)
- Noel Canning v. NLRB, 705 F.3d 490 (D.C. Cir. 2013) (quorum and recess appointments; broader FVRA considerations)