Malone v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., 669 F. App'x 788

Malone, a Securitas employee covered by a collective bargaining agreement with SEIU Local 1, was fired in June 2012 and sued Securitas and the union in December 2013 alleging a hybrid breach-of-CBA/duty-of-fair-representation claim (and originally ADA/FMLA theories which were later dropped).
From the start Malone repeatedly missed status hearings and court deadlines; his case was dismissed once, reopened, then dismissed again for failure to state a claim with leave to amend.
The court set and twice warned Malone about amendment and appearance deadlines; he missed deadlines and hearings again and the judge dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to prosecute in October 2015.
Malone moved to reopen citing illness and homelessness; he filed an amended complaint late and sought reconsideration, but the district court denied reopening in February 2016 and entered final judgment; Malone appealed.
The district court alternatively held Malone’s hybrid claim untimely under the six-month limitation derived from the NLRA because his claim accrued in November 2012 when the union refused to pursue his grievance, and he filed in December 2013.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the dismissal for failure to prosecute was an abuse of discretion	Malone: dismissal improper because illness/homelessness excused noncompliance	Securitas/Union: dismissal appropriate after repeated noncompliance and warnings	Court affirmed dismissal; no abuse of discretion given repeated failures, warnings, and no substantiation of medical excuse
Whether Malone’s notice of appeal was ineffective to challenge the denial of his motion to reopen	Malone: appeal timely from final judgment and brings up prior orders	Securitas: motion was a Rule 60(b) motion and appeal was untimely as to the denial	Court held notice of appeal timely; motion was interlocutory and final judgment appeal brings earlier rulings
Whether hybrid claim is governed by a shorter federal limitations period	Malone: Illinois 2-year personal-injury statute should apply	Defendants: hybrid claim is governed by §160(b)’s six-month limitation per DelCostello	Court held hybrid claims are governed by the six-month NLRA limitation; Malone’s suit was untimely
When Malone’s hybrid claim accrued	Malone: claim didn’t accrue until he realized hybrid liability theory	Defendants: accrual when union notified it would not pursue grievance	Court held accrual at union’s refusal in Nov 2012; plaintiff’s ignorance of legal theory does not delay accrual

DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (establishing hybrid §301/duty-of-fair-representation claim and limitations framework)
Moultrie v. Penn Aluminum Int’l, LLC, 766 F.3d 747 (accrual analysis for hybrid claims)
Martinez v. City of Chicago, 499 F.3d 721 (appealability of orders disposing of postjudgment motions)
Mintz v. Caterpillar Inc., 788 F.3d 673 (Rule 60(b) inapplicable to pre-judgment interlocutory motions)
United States v. Kubrick, 444 U.S. 111 (accrual: limitations runs from knowledge of injury and cause, not legal theory)
McInnis v. Duncan, 697 F.3d 661 (upholding dismissal with prejudice after multiple missed hearings/warnings)
Kasalo v. Harris & Harris, Ltd., 656 F.3d 557 (factors district courts should weigh before dismissing for failure to prosecute)
Emerson v. Thiel Coll., 296 F.3d 184 (medical condition unsupported by evidence does not bar dismissal for noncompliance)