Steele-Klein v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 117
696 F. App'x 200
9th Cir.2017Background
- Plaintiff Mary Steele-Klein, an employee of King County Elections, sued Teamsters Local 117 and Dow Constantine challenging mandatory payroll deductions for the Western Conference Teamsters Pension Trust Fund (WCTP Trust Fund).
- The district court dismissed her complaint for failure to state a claim and denied leave to amend; Steele-Klein appealed.
- She asserted five causes of action: (1) First and Fourteenth Amendment/Hudson procedural violations; (2) an "impermissible tax burden" claim; (3) fraudulent misrepresentation about union dues use; (4) "theft" (construed as conversion); and (5) embezzlement.
- The panel reviewed de novo dismissal for failure to state a claim and reviewed denial of leave to amend for abuse of discretion, and affirmed the district court.
- The court found no cognizable constitutional claim because Hudson applies to union dues, not mandatory pension contributions; several claims failed for lack of plausibly pleaded elements or heightened Rule 9(b) particularity; amendment was futile because plaintiff did not explain what additional facts or parties she would add.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether Hudson procedures apply to mandatory pension contributions | Steele-Klein: Hudson notice/procedural requirements apply to required pension deductions | Defendants: Hudson applies only to mandatory union dues, not pension contributions | Court: Hudson does not apply to pension contributions; claim dismissed |
| 2. Whether defendants imposed an "impermissible tax burden" | Steele-Klein: deductions imposed an impermissible tax burden | Defendants: no legal theory or facts showing a cognizable tax claim | Court: Claim lacks legal basis and factual support; dismissed |
| 3. Fraudulent misrepresentation about union-dues use (Rule 9(b)) | Steele-Klein: Union misrepresented how dues are used | Defendants: allegations fail Rule 9(b) and Washington fraud elements | Court: Pleading fails Rule 9(b) and state-law fraud elements; dismissed |
| 4. "Theft" / conversion based on payroll deductions | Steele-Klein: deductions amounted to theft | Defendants: Washington has no civil "theft" tort; payroll deduction was authorized/consensual | Court: Properly construed as conversion; no wrongful taking pleaded; consent undermines claim; dismissed |
| 5. Embezzlement (civil claim) | Steele-Klein: asserted embezzlement | Defendants: no civil cause of action for embezzlement in Washington | Court: No civil embezzlement claim; dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.) (standard on de novo review and conversion discussion)
- Woods v. U.S. Bank N.A., 831 F.3d 1159 (9th Cir.) (dismissal proper when complaint lacks a cognizable legal theory)
- Chicago Teachers Union v. Hudson, 475 U.S. 292 (1986) (procedural requirements for mandatory union dues notices)
- Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir.) (Rule 9(b) "who, what, when, where, how" pleading standard for fraud)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (individual § 1983 liability requires pleading each official's own actions)
- Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042 (9th Cir.) (futility of amendment when plaintiff fails to state what would be added)
- Stiley v. Block, 925 P.2d 194 (Wash.) (elements of fraudulent misrepresentation under Washington law)