Michael Wiggins v. Wayne MacManiman
698 F. App'x 42
| 3rd Cir. | 2017Background
- Wiggins, a member of SEIU Local 32BJ, sued his union and union representative pro se alleging breach of the duty of fair representation for failing to investigate and arbitrate a grievance over a job position.
- The Union removed the case to federal court and moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).
- The District Court allowed Wiggins to amend his complaint, denied the Union’s initial motion as moot, and the Union renewed its Rule 12(b)(6) motion against the amended complaint.
- Wiggins did not file an opposition brief as required by the District Court’s Local Rule 7.1(c).
- The District Court dismissed Wiggins’s amended complaint with prejudice as unopposed under Local Rule 7.1(c) without analyzing whether the complaint failed to state a claim and without applying the Poulis factors for sanctions.
- The Third Circuit vacated and remanded, explaining that dismissal as an unopposed Rule 12(b)(6) motion amounts to a sanction that requires consideration of Poulis factors and that the court should first assess the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a district court may dismiss a complaint as unopposed under a local rule without addressing Rule 12(b)(6) standards | Wiggins implicitly argues the complaint should not be dismissed for failing to state a claim and that the prior motion disposition made the renewed motion improper | The Union argued dismissal was appropriate because Wiggins failed to oppose the motion per Local Rule 7.1(c) | Vacated and remanded: court cannot dismiss under local rule alone; must analyze 12(b)(6) merits or treat dismissal as a sanction and apply Poulis factors |
| Whether the District Court needed to apply Poulis before dismissing as a sanction | Wiggins contends dismissal was improper and the renewed motion should have been opposed on the merits | The Union relied on local-rule noncompliance to justify dismissal without further analysis | District Court erred by not applying Poulis when effectively imposing dismissal as a sanction |
| Whether exceptions allow summary dismissal for failure to comply with local rules | N/A (Wiggins did not concede nonopposition) | Union could argue exceptions where party truly does not oppose or ignored directives | Third Circuit noted narrow exceptions exist but none applied here; dismissal was improper without Poulis analysis |
| Whether the prior denial of the Union's first motion barred the renewed motion | Wiggins argued the renewed motion was improper because the court had denied the prior motion | Union noted the prior motion was denied as moot after amendment, not on merits | Court found Wiggins’s argument was for opposition on the merits, not a basis to ignore deadlines; remand required for merits consideration |
Key Cases Cited
- Marshall v. Sielaff, 492 F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1974) (favors disposition on the merits)
- Stackhouse v. Mazurkiewicz, 951 F.2d 29 (3d Cir. 1991) (district courts may not dismiss solely under a local rule without 12(b)(6) analysis)
- Poulis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 747 F.2d 863 (3d Cir. 1984) (factors to consider before dismissing as a sanction)
- In re Asbestos Prod. Liab. Litig. (No. VI), 718 F.3d 236 (3d Cir. 2013) (discusses need to consider Poulis factors)
- Doe v. Megless, 654 F.3d 404 (3d Cir. 2011) (discusses exceptions where dismissal may be justified by party conduct)
- Felice v. Sever, 985 F.2d 1221 (3d Cir. 1993) (discusses possible statutory bases for union-related claims)