United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners v. Building & Construction Trades Dep't
2014 U.S. App. LEXIS 20667
9th Cir.2014Background
- The Building and Construction Trades Department, AFL-CIO (Building Trades) allegedly ran a "Push-Back-Carpenters Campaign" of economic pressure and public criticism to coerce the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (Carpenters) to reaffiliate and pay dues.
- Alleged tactics included promoting competing charters, public rallies and criticism, filing regulatory complaints, misuse of confidential information, and orchestrating termination of affiliation agreements; plaintiffs also alleged vandalism, death threats, and dissemination of violent video footage (mostly by unnamed actors).
- Carpenters sued the Building Trades and three officers under civil RICO (18 U.S.C. §1964(c)), the LMRDA (29 U.S.C. §411(a)(5)), and state law claims; the district court dismissed federal claims under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to plead predicate acts and proximate causation and declined supplemental jurisdiction over state claims.
- Central legal question: whether the Building Trades’ economic-pressure campaign and associated conduct plausibly alleged extortion (Hobbs Act or generic/state extortion predicates) or other racketeering predicate acts sufficient for civil RICO, and whether LMRDA procedural protections were violated by expulsions.
- Plaintiffs alleged either (1) economic coercion constituted extortion because the services sought were "unrequested, unwanted and unnecessary," (2) the campaign included wrongful means (frivolous claims, misuse of data) making the pressure extortionate, or (3) threats/violence (or agents who committed violence) established extortion by force or fear.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether economic pressure to force reaffiliation can be Hobbs Act extortion | Campaign sought to obtain Carpenters' money by coercing payment for unwanted services — therefore extortionate | Use of economic fear is often legitimate hard bargaining; plaintiffs lack allegations of wrongful purpose like personal payoff or imposing sham/no-show services | Not extortion: mere economic pressure for union services is not wrongful absent allegations of personal payoff or obtaining value via imposed/fictitious services |
| Whether tortious or incidental unlawful means (frivolous claims, misuse of info) convert pressure into extortion | Inclusion of tortious acts shows wrongful means, so pressure qualifies as extortion under Hobbs Act/generic extortion | Claim-of-right principles require that victim have preexisting right to the offered consideration; incidental torts do not convert a lawful claim into extortion; such wrongs belong to state tort/contract law | Not extortion: incidental torts/breach do not overcome claim-of-right analysis; plaintiffs lack a statutory/contractual entitlement to the services |
| Whether threats/acts of violence by defendants or their agents satisfy extortion-by-force | Statements, prior vandalism, and disseminated video show threats and violent acts connected to defendants/agents | Allegations are conclusory, fail to plead who, when, and how; statements do not amount to direct threats to obtain property; agency/conspiracy links are inadequately alleged | Not extortion: no plausible, particularized allegations that defendants used force or threatened violence to obtain property; conspiracy/agency allegations were conclusory |
| Whether Carpenters’ members were denied LMRDA §101(a)(5) procedural protections by automatic expulsion via termination of affiliation | Revocation of Solidarity Agreement resulted in suspension/expulsion without written charges or hearing — violates LMRDA | Termination of affiliation is not a disciplinary action covered by the statute’s safeguards; §101(a)(5) protects against disciplinary punishments, not contractual affiliation terminations | Not a violation: automatic loss of affiliation is not "discipline" under §411(a)(5); protections apply to disciplinary expulsions, not dissolutions of affiliation agreements |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Enmons, 410 U.S. 396 (1973) (Hobbs Act does not reach legitimate union violence or demands if the demand is a legitimate labor objective; extortion requires obtaining property to which defendant has no lawful claim)
- United States v. Vigil, 523 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir. 2008) (extortion where official used economic pressure to force hiring of a clearly unwanted employee as a personal payoff)
- United States v. Nardello, 393 U.S. 286 (1969) (federal statutes use a generic definition of extortion, not definitions tethered to state labels)
- Scheidler v. Natl Org. for Women, Inc., 537 U.S. 393 (2003) (RICO predicates must be generically extortionate to qualify; labels under state law are not dispositive)
- Wilkie v. Robbins, 551 U.S. 537 (2007) (statutory interpretation requires conduct be generically classifiable as the federal crime alleged)
- United States v. Daane, 475 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2007) (threats/violence are inherently wrongful and not subject to a claim-of-right defense in the Hobbs Act context)
- Levitt v. Yelp! Inc., 765 F.3d 1123 (9th Cir. 2014) (economic fear can constitute "fear" under Hobbs Act but not every use of economic pressure is wrongful)
- Brokerage Concepts, Inc. v. U.S. Healthcare, Inc., 140 F.3d 494 (3d Cir. 1998) (distinguishing hard bargaining from extortion; absence of legal entitlement to the offered consideration defeats extortion claim)
- Rennell v. Rowe, 635 F.3d 1008 (7th Cir. 2011) (party’s lawful contractual termination and hard bargaining do not give rise to Hobbs Act extortion)
- United States v. Villalobos, 748 F.3d 953 (9th Cir. 2014) (conduct involving unlawful acts like witness tampering can be clearly wrongful, but ordinary breaches of duty in pursuit of transactions are not automatically extortionate)