Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
Nine individuals sued District Council 16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO, and the International Union itself. They asserted a single claim under Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, 29 U.S.C. § 411(a)(5). The complaint alleges that the District Council charged all plaintiffs over the same internal strike-committee disbursements and held Trial Board hearings in May 2025. It further alleges that the District Council presented no witnesses or documentary evidence, relied on unsworn summaries and correspondence, made no individualized findings, and imposed identical procedures and substantially identical penalties, including fines and suspensions. Plaintiffs allegedly appealed, and the International Union allegedly affirmed. At this stage these are allegations accepted as true, not findings.
Defendants moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6). Plaintiffs' theory was confined to the lack of a full and fair hearing, and the court noted that the complaint did not allege inadequate time to prepare a defense. Both sides relied on the Trial Board minutes attached to the complaint, so the court reviewed each plaintiff's minutes separately. The order is an unreported magistrate judge ruling on a motion to dismiss. It is not binding precedent.
The Court’s Holding
The court applied Hardeman's requirement that the charging party present some evidence at the disciplinary hearing. The standard is low and no particular form of evidence is required, but the burden rests on the union. The court rejected Defendants' argument that a plaintiff's failure to deny the disbursement when asked if he understood the charges is evidence of guilt, because Defendants had no authority for it and it would shift the burden. The court also rejected the argument that the charges themselves are evidence, and it found nothing showing that investigative findings were presented at the hearings. An unpublished Ninth Circuit decision on which Defendants relied arose on summary judgment and did not displace the requirement.
The court dismissed with prejudice the claims of Quintana, Rodrigues, Snelling, Linares, and Nunez. Their minutes reflected statements, in one case by the plaintiff's own representative, acknowledging that the strike-committee payments were made without prior authorization or that the conduct occurred, even though approval came later. The court treated these as satisfying the some-evidence standard and held that amendment would be futile because the minutes are incorporated in the complaint. It added that Quintana's statement could not count against the other plaintiffs without a showing that it was presented at their hearings.
The claims of King, Rodriguez, Navarro, and Harms survive at the pleading stage. As to King, the minutes showed only receipt of a third party's signed statement. Rodriguez's ambiguous remark did not amount to an admission, and the record did not support Defendants' reading of it. For Navarro, the contents of the letter he referenced were unknown, and his silence did not relieve the Trial Board of its obligation to present some evidence. For Harms, interview notes were read, but their contents were unknown. These rulings do not decide that any hearing was unfair. The court dismissed the International Union without prejudice. Under Moore v. Local Union 569, an international is not liable for affirming a local's action absent bad faith or fraud, or ratification with full knowledge of its unlawful character. The allegation that it affirmed without correcting deficiencies was conclusory. The four remaining plaintiffs may amend within 30 days, by November 13, 2026. Any amendment is limited to the International Union's liability, and no new claims may be added. The court warned that a letter presented at the hearing did not appear to suffice, and it set a case management conference for January 19, 2027.
Key Takeaways
- A union bears the burden of presenting some evidence at the disciplinary hearing itself, and that evidence need not be sworn or formal.
- A member's own statement acknowledging the factual core of the charge, such as making payments without prior approval, can satisfy the low some-evidence standard even if the member disputes that the conduct was improper.
- Silence, a failure to deny the charge, or the charges alone do not supply evidence, and a member who declines to speak does not relieve the union of its burden.
- Claims against an international union that merely affirmed a local's discipline require pleaded facts showing bad faith or full knowledge of unlawfulness, not a general assertion that deficiencies went uncorrected.
- Dismissal with prejudice here rests on minutes incorporated in the complaint, while the international's dismissal is without prejudice and leave to amend is narrowly confined.
Why It Matters
The order shows how courts apply the some-evidence standard on the pleadings, one plaintiff at a time, using attached disciplinary minutes. Admissions in the minutes can defeat a claim at the outset, while an undeveloped record about what evidence was presented keeps a claim alive. It also reinforces that the burden of proof stays with the union.
The case remains at the pleading stage. Four plaintiffs may continue against the District Council, and only a limited amendment against the International Union is open. As an unreported district court order, it carries persuasive weight only.