(PS) Reyes v. Kaiser Permanente
2:19-cv-02289-KJM-CKD
E.D. Cal.Dec 15, 2020Background
- Pro se plaintiff Irvin Reyes sued Kaiser Permanente, a Kaiser employee (Melinda McGhee), and the Service Employees International Union, United Healthcare Workers, alleging surgical errors and wrongful termination.
- Kaiser Permanente has not appeared and appears not to have been properly served; the magistrate issued an order to show cause whether Reyes’s claims against Kaiser are precluded by prior unsuccessful suits.
- McGhee and the Union moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6); the magistrate recommended granting the motion.
- Reyes did not object to the magistrate’s findings and recommendations but filed a second amended complaint, construed by the court as a request for leave to amend.
- The district court reviewed legal conclusions de novo and concluded: (1) an individual (McGhee) cannot be sued for breach of the duty of fair representation and analogous state tort claims are preempted; (2) Reyes’s union claim is time-barred under the six‑month rule governing suit against unions.
- The court dismissed claims against McGhee and the Union without leave to amend as futile and referred the matter back to the magistrate to consider the show‑cause order re: Kaiser and other proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an individual union representative can be liable for breach of the duty of fair representation | Reyes argues McGhee should be liable for wrongful representation/actions surrounding his termination | McGhee contends breach-of‑duty claims lie against unions, not individual agents | Dismissed: Individuals cannot be sued for the duty of fair representation; claim against McGhee fails |
| Whether state-law tort claims based on same allegations survive federal preemption | Reyes asserts state tort remedies for the conduct alleged | Defendants argue analogous state claims are preempted by federal labor law | Dismissed: State-law tort claims preempted by federal law |
| Whether Reyes’s claim against the Union is timely | Reyes maintains his claim is timely or otherwise viable | Union argues Reyes sued more than six months after he knew or should have known the union would not contest his termination (DelCostello rule) | Dismissed: Claim time‑barred under the six‑month rule against unions |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted for McGhee/Union claims | Reyes sought leave via a second amended complaint | Defendants argue amendment would be futile given legal defects and timeliness bar | Denied: Amendment would be futile; dismissal without leave to amend affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207 (9th Cir. 1979) (presumption of correctness for magistrate judge factual findings)
- Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143 (9th Cir. 2007) (de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Carter v. Smith Food King, 765 F.2d 916 (9th Cir. 1985) (duty of fair representation lies against unions, not individuals; federal preemption of analogous state claims)
- DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151 (U.S. 1983) (six‑month statute of limitations for hybrid or § 301 actions against unions applies when employee knew or should have known of union’s decision)
- Airs Aromatics, LLC v. Victoria's Secret Stores Brand Mgmt., Inc., 744 F.3d 595 (9th Cir. 2014) (dismissal without leave to amend permitted when amendment would be futile)