Waugh Chapel South, LLC v. United Food & Commercial Workers Union, Local 27
2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 17752
| 4th Cir. | 2013Background
- Waugh Chapel South, LLC and ELG sued UFCW Locals 27 and 400 and the Fund under LMRA § 187 for alleged unfair labor practices via a secondary boycott.
- WCS alleged the unions orchestrated fourteen legal challenges to deter Wegmans as a tenant and force termination of non-unionized relationships.
- The district court dismissed the Fund claim as not a labor organization and dismissed other claims on Noerr-Pennington grounds; consent order later disposed of remaining Count II.
- The court treated the Noerr-Pennington issue as a summary judgment matter and analyzed whether the litigation pattern could constitute sham litigation under California Motor and PREI standards.
- On appeal, the Fourth Circuit held the Fund is not a labor organization, but concluded there remains a genuine issue of material fact whether the unions abused the court-petitioning process, warranting remand for further determination.
- The court affirmed the district court’s dismissal of the Fund claim, vacated the dismissal of the remaining unions’ claims, and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is the Fund a labor organization under NLRA? | WCS contends Fund participates in labor activities. | Fund’s charter prohibits participation; not a bilateral dealing entity. | Fund is not a labor organization under NLRA. |
| Does Noerr-Pennington shield the unions from LMRA claims as sham litigation? | Series of lawsuits constitute abusive petitioning to enforce a secondary boycott. | Litigation is protected petitioning activity unless sham. | Noerr-Pennington does not bar at this stage; California Motor sham-litigation standard applies to a pattern of litigation, creating genuine issue of material fact. |
| Should the sham-litigation analysis be applied to a pattern of proceedings rather than a single suit? | Pattern shows abuse of adjudicatory processes. | PREI governs sham single suits; California Motor governs pattern. | California Motor standard governs pattern, and a genuine issue of material fact exists to determine abuse. |
| Did the district court properly dismiss the Fund claim and remand the remaining claims? | District court erred by dismissing on Noerr-Pennington without full record. | Fund appropriately dismissed; remaining claims properly evaluated. | Affirmed as to Fund; vacated as to remaining unions and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Cal. Motor Transp. Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 508 (1972) (sham litigation exception to Noerr-Pennington)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (1993) (two-part sham litigation test)
- POSCO Indus. v. Contra Costa Cnty. Bldg. & Const. Trades Council, 31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994) (pattern vs. single-action sham analysis)
- Dean v. Pilgrim’s Pride Corp., 395 F.3d 471 (4th Cir. 2005) (summary judgment procedure for Noerr-Pennington dismissal)
- Baltimore Scrap Corp. v. David J. Joseph Co., 237 F.3d 394 (4th Cir. 2001) (consideration of sham litigation in a pattern context)