Rodriguez

Rodriguez v. Service Employees International

Good Law
755 F. Supp. 2d 1033·2010 WL 5122384·189 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2958·2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124291
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaNovember 23, 2010C-10-01377 JCSCalifornia9,565 words

Opinion

Opinion

Spero, J.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION (FRCP 12(b)(1)) AND FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM UPON WHICH RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED (FRCP 12(b)(6)), AND IN THE ALTERNATIVE, MOTION FOR A MORE DEFINITE STATEMENT (FRCP 12(e)) [Docket No. 56]

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs in this action are union members who assert claims under the Labor Management Relations Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”) based on alleged impropriety by Defendant Service Employees International Union Local 87 (“Local 87”) and several individual officers of the Local 87 in connection with ratification of a collective bargaining agreement. The parties have consented to the jurisdiction of a magistrate judge, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (c). Defendant Local 87 brings a Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction (FRCP 12(b)(1)) and Failure to State a Claim upon Which Relief Can Be Granted (FRCP 12(b)(6)), and in the Alternative, Motion for a More Definite Statement (FRCP 12(e)) (hereinafter, “Motion” or “Motion to Dismiss”). The Court finds that the Motion is suitable for determination without oral argument,…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.