Jose Mendoza, Jr. v. Amalgamated Transit Union
20-16079
9th Cir.Apr 7, 2022Background
- Jose Mendoza, president of ATU Local 1637, was removed after ATU imposed a trusteeship alleging financial malfeasance.
- Mendoza sued ATU and related individuals in Nevada state court (Mendoza I), asserting tort and breach-of-contract claims based on the union constitution/bylaws.
- ATU removed Mendoza I to federal court, arguing the claims were preempted by LMRA §301; the district court dismissed tort claims and treated two contract claims as §301 claims.
- Mendoza and seven former board members filed Mendoza II in federal court, adding MKA (accountant) and KTA (Mendoza’s employer) as defendants; the cases were consolidated.
- The district court granted summary judgment to ATU on the remaining contract claims, dismissed ATU claims in Mendoza II for claim splitting, and dismissed all claims against the MKA and KTA defendants for failure to state a claim or on summary judgment.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s rulings in full; Judge Collins concurred in part but would have vacated and remanded the grant of summary judgment to KTA on the civil RICO claim for procedural-notice reasons.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether state-law claims based on a union constitution are preempted by LMRA §301 | Mendoza: union constitution claims are not preempted | ATU: union constitution/constitution-based claims fall under §301 preemption | Preempted by §301; Garcia controls — affirmed |
| Whether ATU improperly amended bylaws or failed required procedures when imposing trusteeship | Mendoza: ATU amended Local 1637 bylaws/improper procedure; raises contract claims | ATU: followed amendment and trusteeship procedures; no breach | Summary judgment for ATU — no reasonable jury could find breach |
| Whether claims against MKA (auditor) and KTA (employer) state viable claims | Plaintiffs: MKA/KTA participated in misconduct supporting claims | MKA/KTA: complaints fail to state claims; insufficient evidence at summary judgment | Dismissed/summary judgment for MKA and KTA — affirmed |
| Civil RICO claim against KTA: sufficiency of predicate acts, enterprise, injury, and whether district court had given proper notice for its alternative rationale | Plaintiffs: evidence supports predicate acts, enterprise, injury; RICO claim should survive | KTA: plaintiffs fail to prove predicate acts, injury, or enterprise; district court’s alternative ground justified judgment | Majority affirmed summary judgment to KTA; Judge Collins would vacate/remand the RICO dismissal because the district court granted on grounds not raised by defendants without giving plaintiffs reasonable notice and time to respond |
Key Cases Cited
- Garcia v. Serv. Emp. Int’l Union, 993 F.3d 757 (9th Cir. 2021) (Section 301 completely preempts state-law claims based on union constitutions)
- Grimmett v. Brown, 75 F.3d 506 (9th Cir. 1996) (elements required to establish a civil RICO claim)
- Buckingham v. United States, 998 F.2d 735 (9th Cir. 1993) (litigants must get reasonable notice and time to develop facts when the sufficiency of a claim will be adjudicated)
- Portsmouth Square v. Shareholders Protective Comm’n, 770 F.2d 866 (9th Cir. 1985) (same: procedural fairness requires notice before dispositive rulings on unbriefed grounds)
- Fountain v. Filson, 336 U.S. 681 (1949) (summary judgment may be entered on grounds not raised by a party only after notice and reasonable time to respond)