570 F.Supp.3d 954
D. Or.2021Background
- Plaintiff Staci Trees is an Oregon public employee who joined SEIU Local 503 in 2009 and alleges the union forged her signature on a March 22, 2016 membership/dues authorization captured on an iPad.
- Trees says she revoked membership in July 2018 and again in December 2020; DAS (state payroll) continued deductions through Feb 28, 2021 per SEIU instruction.
- Trees filed a federal suit (§ 1983, RICO, state claims) alleging constitutional violations and fraud/racketeering against SEIU, DAS, and the DAS Director.
- SEIU filed an unfair labor practice (ULP) complaint with the Oregon Employment Relations Board (ERB), alleging Trees validly executed the 2016 authorization and that Trees’ state claims belong before ERB.
- Trees moved for a temporary restraining order (TRO) enjoining the ERB and its ALJ (nonparties) from proceeding with the ULP hearing, citing risk that ERB factual findings would have preclusive effect in federal court.
- The district court denied the TRO, concluding it lacked a basis to enjoin the nonparty ERB and that Trees failed to show likely irreparable harm from the parallel state proceeding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Authority to enjoin nonparty state agency (ERB) | Federal court may enjoin state proceedings to protect § 1983 rights and exercise inherent authority | Rule 65 and common-law principles bar injunctions against nonparties; ERB is not legally identified with defendants | Court: No basis to enjoin ERB; TRO cannot bind nonparties absent narrow exceptions that are not met |
| Use of All Writs Act / in-aid-of-jurisdiction | ERB proceedings usurp this Court’s jurisdiction and risk preclusion, so All Writs Act relief is appropriate | Parallel in-personam proceedings are permissible; ERB does not impair federal jurisdiction | Court: All Writs Act does not apply because ERB proceedings do not impair the court’s jurisdiction |
| Irreparable harm from ERB factual findings | An adverse ERB finding could be given preclusive effect and deprive Trees of her federal forum / jury rights | Any harm is speculative; litigation expense or preclusive effect (if any) is not irreparable and can be addressed later by the federal court | Court: Trees did not show likely irreparable harm—mere litigation expense and potential preclusion are insufficient for TRO |
| Whether ERB is adjudicating federal claims and need for preemption of ERB hearing | ERB factual findings on 2016 signature could prejudge issues central to Trees’ § 1983 and RICO claims | ERB lacks jurisdiction over federal constitutional claims; it will decide only state ULP issues and factual matters; any preclusion question is for the federal court to resolve later | Court: ERB is not adjudicating § 1983 claims; concern about preclusive effect does not justify emergency injunction |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) (standard for preliminary injunctions: likelihood of success, irreparable harm, balance of equities, public interest)
- All. for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127 (9th Cir. 2011) (serious questions test as alternative framework for injunctions)
- Stuhlbarg Int’l Sales Co. v. John D. Brush & Co., 240 F.3d 832 (9th Cir. 2001) (TRO factors largely mirror preliminary injunction factors)
- Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U.S. 32 (1940) (one is not bound by judgment in litigation to which one is not a party)
- Scott v. Donald, 165 U.S. 107 (1897) (injunctions should not bind nonparties who were not heard)
- Regal Knitwear Co. v. NLRB, 324 U.S. 9 (1945) (equitable injunctions may bind those in privity or identified with defendants)
- Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678 (1946) (federal courts may enjoin to protect constitutional rights; jurisdictional principles for § 1983 suits)
- Mitchum v. Foster, 407 U.S. 225 (1972) (§ 1983 can support injunctive relief against state-court actions in some circumstances)
- B&B Hardware, Inc. v. Hargis, Inc., 575 U.S. 138 (2015) (administrative determinations can have preclusive effect in later suits)
- Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90 (1980) (§ 1983 actions are subject to traditional preclusion doctrines)