Pulte Homes, Inc. v. Laborers' International Union of North America
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 15828
| 6th Cir. | 2011Background
- Pulte Homes, an active home builder, sues LIUNA and two officers after a nationwide campaign damaging its phone and e-mail systems.
- LIUNA filed an unfair-labor-practice charge with the NLRB shortly after Pulte fired a crew member for misconduct.
- LIUNA’s campaign involved a high volume of calls and e-mails generated via auto-dialing and member postings to disrupt Pulte’s business,
- Pulte asserted state-law torts and CFAA claims for damage to its computer systems caused by LIUNA’s communications.
- The district court denied a preliminary injunction and dismissed the CFAA claims; the Sixth Circuit consolidated and reviewed both the injunction denial and the dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Garmon preemption bars CFAA claims | Independent federal remedy preserves CFAA claim | Garmon bars depending on NLRA implications | Garmon preemption does not bar CFAA claim |
| Whether Pulte states a CFAA transmission claim | LIUNA intentionally caused damage via transmissions | No intentional damage alleged or shown | Pulte states a plausible transmission claim |
| Whether Pulte states a CFAA access claim | LIUNA accessed Pulte’s system without authorization | LIUNA had authorization to call/delete emails | Access claim not shown without authorization; dismissed |
| Whether the court should grant leave to amend | Add facts to cure deficiencies | Amendment not warranted | District court did not abuse discretion; amendment denied on remand |
| Whether NLGA §8 precludes preliminary injunction | NLGA not a bar to CFAA injunction | Section 8 requires 'every reasonable effort' to settle dispute | NLGA §8 violated; injunction improper; district court lacked jurisdiction |
Key Cases Cited
- Trollinger v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 370 F.3d 602 (6th Cir. 2004) (independent-federal-remedy exception preserves jurisdiction despite Garmon)
- LVRC Holdings LLC v. Brekka, 581 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of 'without authorization' vs 'exceeds authorized access')
- Citrin v. International Airport Ctrs., L.L.C., 440 F.3d 418 (7th Cir. 2006) (distinguishes 'without authorization' from 'exceeds authorized access')
- Grand Trunk Western R.R. Co. v. Maint. of Way Emps. Div., 497 F.3d 568 (6th Cir. 2007) (NLGA procedural requirements for injunctions)
- Crowe & Assocs., Inc. v. Bricklayers & Masons Union Local No. 2, 713 F.2d 211 (6th Cir. 1983) (NLGA interplay with federal labor statutes)
- Grace Co. v. Williams, 20 F. Supp. 263 (W.D. Mo. 1937) ( Grace Co. cited for 'every reasonable effort' standard (contextual))