Peter Savage v. Doug Tweedy

MEMORANDUM *

Plaintiffs Peter Savage, Cliff Puckett, Michael Wallace, and Gabriel Triplett appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction in their suit under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (a)(1). We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s denial of a preliminary injunction. Melendres v. Arpaio, 695 F.3d 990, 999 (9th Cir.2012). The district court’s interpretation of the law, however, is subject to de novo review, and a district court abuses its discretion when it makes an error of law. Bay Area Addiction Research & Treatment, Inc. v. City of Antioch, 179 F.3d 725, 730 (9th Cir.1999). Because we conclude that the district court made two legal errors, we reverse.

1. The district court abused its discretion when it concluded that Appellants did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits because they “fail[ed] to establish that the charges brought against them were based on their ‘free speech.’ ” Section 101(a)(2) of the LMRDA protects, inter alia, the rights “to meet and assemble freely” and “to express any views, arguments, or opinions.” 29 U.S.C. §…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the district court abused its discretion in concluding that Appellants were unlikely to suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. I dissent, however, from the remainder of the majority’s decision. I would hold that the district court acted within its discretion in determining that Appellants failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits.

The majority’s conclusion is based on its finding that the union rules Appellants were disciplined for violating were not established at the time the phone bank was conducted. However, members and officials of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters (“UBC”), as well as the UBC’s national appeals committee, consistently determined Appellants’ conduct violated the UBC constitution. The UBC’s construction of its own constitution is entitled to broad deference to avoid unnecessary interference in its internal affairs. Local 1052 of United Broth. of Carpenters & Joiners v. Los Angeles Cnty. Dist. Council of Carpenters, 944 F.2d 610, 613 (9th Cir.1991). Accordingly, I cannot say that the district court abused its discretion by deferring to that interpretation.

FILED

NOT FOR PUBLICATION MAY 16 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

PETER SAVAGE; CLIFF PUCKETT; V. No. 12-35727

MICHAEL WALLACE; GABRIEL

TRIPLETT, D.C. No. 3:12-CV-01317-HZ

Plaintiffs - Appellants,

MEMORANDUM *

v.

DOUG TWEEDY; NORTHWEST

PACIFIC REGIONAL COUNCIL OF

CARPENTERS; UNITED

BROTHERHOOD OF CARPENTERS

AND JOINERS OF AMERICA,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Oregon Marco A. Hernandez, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted April 8, 2013 Seattle, Washington

Before: D.W. NELSON, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3. Plaintiffs Peter Savage, Cliff Puckett, Michael Wallace, and Gabriel Triplett

appeal the district court’s denial of their motion for a preliminary injunction in

their suit under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act

(“LMRDA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a)(1).…