MICHAEL P. HOGAN v. TEAMSTERS LOCAL 170, AND SHANNOR R. GEORGE, individually and in his capacity as Secretary-Treasurer of TREAMSTERS LOCAL 170
No. 19-11339-TSH
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
September 30, 2020
HILLMAN, D.J.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR TO DISMISS
September 30, 2020
HILLMAN, D.J.
Background
The factual background is taken from Plaintiff‘s Complaint and assumed to be true at this stage of the litigation. The Court will also consider facts susceptible of judicial notice that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably be questioned.”
On June 11, 2018, the Worcester Police Department‘s Latent Print Unit issued a finding that a latent print identified as belonging to Plaintiff was found on a letter inside one of the unopened envelopes. On June 14, 2018, a Worcester police officer (“Interviewing Officer“) interviewed George and informed him of the Latent Print Unit‘s findings. During the interview, George stated that Plaintiff drove past the Local 170 and blew his truck‘s air horn “nearly every day.” George further stated that he had been told by others that Plaintiff‘s reason for driving by Local 170 and blowing his air horn was to “let George know that [Hogan] will be coming back.” The Interviewing Officer noted in his report that this caused George and his family severe emotional distress and that he advised George to seek a harassment order against Plaintiff.
On June 15, 2018, the Interviewing Officer interviewed Plaintiff who denied any knowledge of the letters, could not explain how his fingerprint was on one of the letters, and expressed his opinion that “campaign mailings for union election are not subject to libel laws.” Plaintiff denied preparing, forging, or distributing the letters, and alleged that Defendants wrongfully accused him when they knew or should have known that he did not prepare, forge, or distribute the letters.
On June 18, 2018, the Interviewing Police Officer wrote an extended report of his investigation concluding that Plaintiff “had knowledge of the content of the 5 letters and they were sent to harass the victim [George] who has suffered serious emotional distress. Plaintiff has participated in a pattern of harassment through the repeated use of the air horn as well as these letters.” On the same day, the Interviewing Officer requested that a “summons be issued charging Michael Hogan with Criminal Harassment
On June 19, 2018, George filed charges against Plaintiff with the Executive Board of Local 170, alleging facts similar to those in the criminal harassment allegations and seeking to expel Plaintiff from Local 170. On July 20, 2018, a hearing was conducted by Local 170 on the charges against Plaintiff. Although Plaintiff received notice of this hearing several weeks prior to the hearing date, he requested postponement on the day before the hearing. That request was denied, and the hearing was held without Plaintiff‘s presence. On July 24, 2018, the Executive Board of Local 170 found Plaintiff guilty of the charges and expelled him from Local 170.
The Plaintiff appealed that finding and requested a stay of the expulsion order, which was granted by the union‘s General President pending exhaustion of Plaintiff‘s internal union appeals. The stay also permitted Plaintiff to continue his campaign for Secretary-Treasurer of Local 170. On September 4, 2018, a hearing on the appeal was held by Joint Council 10, which upheld the guilty finding and expulsion of Plaintiff from Local 170. Plaintiff appealed that decision to the General Executive Board of IBT. During the appeal process, Defendants continued to inform the membership of Local 170 that Plaintiff had been expelled and continued to inform the membership that Plaintiff had prepared, forged, and distributed the letters. Plaintiff continued his candidacy for the position of Secretary-Treasurer but was defeated in the election. On or about December 5, 2018, after the election was over, IBT issued a decision reversing the decision of the Executive Board of Local 170 and Joint Council 10 to expel Plaintiff.
Standard of Review
A defendant may move to dismiss, based solely on the complaint, for the plaintiff‘s “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.”
In evaluating a motion to dismiss, the court must accept all factual allegations in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiffs favor. Langadinos v. American Airlines, Inc., 199 F.3d 68, 68 (1st Cir. 2000). It is a “context-specific task” to determine “whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief,” one that “requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (2009) (internal citations
Discussion
The first issue that the Court confronts are the factual allegations in the Complaint that are contradicted by factual allegations in the exhibits incorporated into the Complaint. (Compl. 2 ¶ 10, 4 ¶ 25, Docket No. 1.) Pursuant to
Count I – Breach of Contract
In Count I, Plaintiff contends that the IBT Constitution is a contract between IBT, Local 170 and their members within the meaning of § 301 of the Labor Relations Management Act (“LMRA“),
For a breach-of-contract claim to survive a motion to dismiss under Massachusetts law, a plaintiff “must do more than allege, in conclusory fashion, that the defendant breached the contract“; rather, he must “describ[e], with ‘substantial certainty’ the specific contractual promise the defendant failed to keep.” Alenci v. Hometown Am. Mgt., LLC, CV 19-12244-LTS, 2020 WL 2515872, at *4 (D. Mass. May 15, 2020), citing Brooks v. AIG SunAmerica Life Assurance Co., 480 F.3d 579, 586 (1st Cir. 2007). A plaintiff must “at least” plead facts identifying “who did what to whom, when, where, and why,” and explaining “what obligations were imposed on each of the parties by the alleged contract.” See id., citing Higgins v. Town of Concord, 246 F. Supp. 3d 502, 518 (D.Mass. 2017). In Massachusetts, interpretation of a contract‘s terms is a legal question properly resolved by the Court. Allstate Ins. Co. v. Bearce, 589 N.E.2d 1235, 1238 (Mass. 1992).
Principles of contract interpretation require that “[s]pecific terms are given greater weight than general language,” In re 604 Columbus Ave. Realty Tr., 968 F.2d 1332, 1357 (1st Cir. 1992), and that individual provisions are interpreted “within the context of the contract as a whole, rather than in isolation,” Barclays Bank PLC v. Poynter, 710 F.3d 16, 21 (1st Cir. 2013). Plaintiff did not include any language in his Complaint specifying which article was allegedly violated by Local 170 and instead attached the IBT Constitution as an exhibit to his Opposition to Defendant‘s Motion to Dismiss. (Pl.‘s Opp.
Here, Plaintiff plausibly sets forth a claim for breaching the IBT Constitution. Defendant George filed charges against Plaintiff on June 19, 2018, with the Executive Board of Local 170, alleging virtually the same facts as in the criminal harassment allegations and seeking to expel Plaintiff from Local 170. Several weeks later, on July 9, the show cause hearing was held before a Clerk Magistrate in state district court who found no probable cause, which was appealed by the Worcester Police to a district court judge. An August 7 hearing was scheduled for the appeal. During this time, it appears that Defendant George was pursuing his charges against Plaintiff with the Local 170, for which a hearing was conducted on July 20, 2018. On July 24, the Local 170 found Plaintiff guilty of the charges and voted to expel him; on the same day, at the behest of the Local 170‘s attorney, the appeal of the Clerk Magistrate‘s decision was withdrawn by the Worcester Police. Because Plaintiff has alleged facts establishing a plausible entitlement to relief for breach of contract, the Court denies the motion to dismiss Count I.
Count II - Retaliation
Plaintiff argues that the Defendants brought criminal and union charges against Plaintiff to discredit him because he was exercising his right to seek election and running against and speaking out against Defendant George. He further argues that this conduct constitutes “retaliation” under Title I of the Labor Management Reporting Disclosure Act (“LMRDA“),
An allegation of retaliation does not give rise to a violation of
Plaintiff alleges that Local 170 retaliated against him by bringing criminal and union charges, and expelling him from membership in the union because he was running against and speaking out against George. As Defendants correctly note, the specific provision cited by Plaintiff for his claim only guarantees union members adequate notice and a fair hearing before certain disciplinary actions may be taken. The motion to dismiss Count 2 is granted.
Counts III & IV – Abuse of Process and Malicious Prosecution
In Count Three, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants instituted criminal charges against him when they knew or should have known that Plaintiff did not harass the Defendants. In Count Four Plaintiff alleges that Defendants instituted criminal charges against him without basis and maliciously with intent to harm him. Defendants argue that Plaintiff failed to allege specific facts establishing the elements of either an abuse of process claim or malicious prosecution claim. Furthermore, Defendants argue that the Worcester Police Department, not Defendants, initiated a criminal harassment charge against Plaintiff and therefore the claim must be dismissed.
For a successful abuse of process claim, Plaintiff must show that the process used was not a “legitimate purpose of the particular process employed.” Millennium Equity Holdings, LLC, v. Mahlowitz, 73 Mass. App. Ct. 29, 35 (2008). This rule stands even when there may be an ulterior benefit to the defendant in bringing an action. Id. Specifically, to state a claim for abuse of process, a plaintiff “must allege facts sufficient to support the propositions that (1) process was used; (2) for an ulterior or illegitimate purpose; (3) resulting in damage.” Jones v. Brockton Public Markets, Inc., 369 Mass. 38, 389 (1975). In this case, the particular process employed was the commencement of the criminal harassment charge. The criminal harassment charge was instituted by the Worcester Police Department based on interviews and the fingerprint found on the disparaging letters. It is irrelevant that Defendant George ultimately benefited in the union election from bringing these charges.
To survive a motion to dismiss for the similar but distinct tort of malicious prosecution, a plaintiff must allege facts establishing that: (1) that the defendant initiated a criminal action against the plaintiff; (2) that the criminal prosecution ended in the plaintiff‘s favor; (3) that there was no probable cause to initiate the criminal charge; and (4) that the defendant acted maliciously. Miller v. City of Bos., 297 F. Supp. 2d 361, 366 (D. Mass. 2003). For a successful malicious prosecution claim, Plaintiff must show that he was damaged because the defendant initiated an “original action without probable cause and with malice, and that the original action terminated in his favor.” Millennium Equity, 73 Mass. App. Ct. at 35-36. Probable cause can be established when it is shown that at the time the complaint was initiated, the claimant reasonably believed the claim was valid. Id. at 36.
Count V – Defamation
Plaintiff alleges that Defendants made statements to the membership of Local 170 and to the public “in general both orally and in writing, that tended to injure the honesty, integrity, morality, and reputation” of Plaintiff. Plaintiff further argues that these alleged statements, which Defendants knew or should have known were untrue, exposed him to public contempt and ridicule, and injured and damaged his business.
Defendants argue that Plaintiff has not plead sufficient detail to meet the elements of a defamation claim. Specifically, Defendants argue that Massachusetts law requires a heightened pleading standard for defamation claims and Plaintiff failed to provide the precise wording, approximate dates, and words of the alleged defamatory statements. Also, Defendants argue that the alleged statement that Plaintiff was expelled from Local 170 is not actionable because it is not materially false. Finally, Defendants argue that the LMRDA preempts state law defamation actions unless the alleged defamatory statements were made with actual malice and the plaintiff suffered actual harm. Defendants further argue that Plaintiff has made no allegation that any of the Defendants alleged statements were made with actual malice and alleged no facts suggesting Defendants “knew or should have known” that Plaintiff did not prepare, forge or distribute the letters in Exhibit A of the Complaint, and therefore the claim must be dismissed.
“Defamation is the publication of material by one without a privilege to do so which ridicules or treats the plaintiff with contempt.” North Shore Pharmacy Servs., Inc. v. Breslin Associates Consulting LLC, 491 F.Supp.2d 111, 124 (D.Mass. 2007) (quoting Correllas v. Viveiros, 410 Mass. 314, 319, 572 N.E.2d 7 (1991)). “To prove defamation, the plaintiff must establish that the defendant was at fault for the publication of a false statement regarding the plaintiff, capable of damaging the plaintiff‘s reputation in the community, which either caused economic loss or is actionable without proof of economic loss.” Dragonas v. School Comm. of Melrose, 64 Mass.App.Ct. 429, 437, 833 N.E.2d 679 (2005) (internal quotation and citation omitted). Claims for defamation are subject to the notice pleading requirements set forth in
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 8) is hereby granted as to Count II, III and V. and denied as to Counts I and IV.
SO ORDERED
/s/ Timothy S. Hillman
TIMOTHY S. HILLMAN
DISTRICT JUDGE