Opinion
01 Civ. 4260 (RWS).
May 2, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Four motions are pending before this Court in the above-entitled action, all of which are discussed below. Defendant American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees ("AFSCME") has moved for summary judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Plaintiff pro se Roy Commer ("Commer") has moved for leave to move to amend his complaint, to compel discovery, and for reconsideration of his motion to compel discovery.
For the following reasons, AFSCME's motion is granted. Because of this finding, Commer's discovery requests are denied, but his motion for leave to move to amend his complaint is granted.
The relevant facts and parties are discussed in greater detail in Commer v. AFSCME, No. 01 Civ. 4260, 2001 WL 1658191 (Dec. 27, 2001), familiarity with which is presumed. In that opinion, AFSCME's motion for summary granted was granted as to one of Commer's two claims in his complaint, filed on May 18, 2001. By motion dated March 11, 2002, AFSCME now moves for summary judgment against the remaining claim under §§ 462 and 464 of the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 29 U.S. § 411(a)(2) ("LMRDA") to dissolve the administratorship of District Council 37. The motion was heard on May 1, 2002.
Since the last opinion on December 27, 2001, significant developments have taken place. On February 26, 2002, nominations for DC 37 officers were conducted. The candidates that were nominated for the Union's respective officer positions went unchallenged and, as such, were installed as the new officers of DC 37. On that same day, the International President lifted the administratorship over DC 37 and instructed the former administrator to turn over all property to the newly elected officers of DC 37. The International President also returned control of DC 37's property and of its operational and financial affairs to the elected officers. There is no dispute as to these facts.
The cases addressing LMRDA § 464(a) have routinely held that once an election has been scheduled in a subordinate body, claims which seek to attack the validity of a trusteeship, or seek its dissolution, are mooted. Eannuzzi v. Carey, No. 95 Civ. 1778, 1996 WL 604512 (S.D.N.Y. May 3, 1996) (dismissing plaintiff's claims seeking dissolution of trusteeship and declaratory judgment that trusteeship invalid as moot after trustee scheduled elections of officers for union) (citing Colgan v. Carey, 1995 Wl 88974, at *3 (N.D.Ill. 1995) ("The question of whether and when the trusteeship was presumed invalid was rendered moot by defendants' decision to permit Local 705 to hold elections for self-government.")); see also Local Unions 20 v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, No. 98 Civ. 1778, 1999 WL 60084 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 8, 1999) (relying on Eannuzzi and Colgan and finding no need for an evidentiary hearing as the union had promulgated a timetable for union elections).
Not only have elections been scheduled in this case, they have been completed. New officers are in place and the administratorship has been lifted. Therefore, Commer's § 464(a) claim has become moot, and his complaint is hereby dismissed.
On April 21, 2002, Commer moved for an extension of time to respond to the defendant's motion for summary judgment and for leave to amend the complaint. In light of the foregoing, the extension of time is not granted. However, Commer will have twenty (20) days in which to move to amend the complaint.
As a result of the foregoing, Commer's discovery motions (the original motion to compel and his motion for reconsideration) are dismissed with leave to renew if he is permitted to amend his complaint.
It is so ordered.