Unite Here Local 25 v. Madison Ownership, LLC, 850 F. Supp. 2d 219

Union sues to compel arbitration under the CBA over a claimed breach of the successorship clause in connection with the Madison Hotel sale.
Defendants are Madison Ownership LLC, Madison Operating LLC, and Loews Madison Hotel Corp.; Jamestown Properties purchased the hotel.
CBA terms include a Leases and Sales successorship clause and a Grievance/Arbitration provision (art. 1.12(a) and art. 17.1).
Dispute centers on whether the CBA was in effect and which entities were bound by it during January 2011; the TRO ruling did not resolve these questions.
Union seeks to have the grievance heard by arbitration rather than enjoin the sale; the case involves mootness questions due to the hotel sale but unsettled arbitrability issues remain.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the dispute moot given the hotel’s sale?	Union argues live issues persist about extension and parties bound.	Defendants contend no live controversy or remedy exists post-sale.	No; the issue remains live because extension and binding parties require determination.
Was a CBA in effect during January 2011 to arbitrate the grievance?	Union maintains the CBA extended to March 2011.	Defendants dispute any extension or existence of the CBA at that time.	Unresolved; discovery may determine whether CBA existed and could compel arbitration.
Which parties were bound by the CBA during the dispute?	Local 25 asserts Operating, Ownership, and Loews were bound as employer/manager.	Operating contends it was not a party; Loews argues no involvement.	Unresolved; determine who is bound to assess court’s jurisdiction.
Does LMRA §301(a) jurisdiction survive if the CBA expired?	If CBA existed, arbitration could be compelled; if not, lack of jurisdiction.	Once expired, no contract to enforce via arbitration.	Jurisdiction depends on whether a CBA existed at the time; discovery may clarify.
Should the court order arbitration despite mootness/formation questions?	Arbitration could still be compelled if a CBA covered the grievance.	Mootness/formation issues may foreclose arbitration.	Court declines to dismiss; allows discovery to resolve jurisdiction and formation.

Granite Rock Co. v. Int'l Brotherhood of Teamsters, 130 S. Ct. 2847 (2010) (formation issues must be decided by courts; arbitration only if contract formation is in question)
Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S. 190 (1991) (post-expiration grievances arbitrable only if arising under the contract)
AT&T Techs Inc. v. Commun. Workers of Am., 475 U.S. 648 (1986) (arbitration authority depends on the contract terms and scope)
Nolde Brothers Inc. v. Bakery Workers, 430 U.S. 243 (1977) (post-expiration rights can be arbitrable if they arise under the contract)
Washington Post v. M-29, 699 F. Supp. 2d 130 (D.D.C. 2010) (courts consider post-expiration arbitrability of contractual rights)