Opinion
Case No. 99-4023-RDR.
June 13, 2000.
K. Gary Sebelius, Wright, Henson, Somers, Sebelius, Clark Baker, LLP, Topeka, KS; Anessa Abrams, Henry A Platt and Gary L Lieber, Schmeltzer, Aptaker Shepard, P.C., Washington, DC, for plaintiff.
Byron J. Beck and Robert A. West, Morrison Hecker L.L.P., Kansas City, MO; Kristine A. Larscheid, Fisher, Patterson, Sayler Smith, Topeka, KS, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (NECA), a national trade association, brought this declaratory judgment action against one of its local chapters, the Kansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Association, Inc. (Chapter or Kansas Chapter), and two of the Chapter's agents, its president and its manager. NECA seeks an order of the court declaring that the defendant Kansas Chapter is subject to its authority to place the Chapter into sponsorship pursuant to NECA's bylaws. The Kansas Chapter answered and asserted a counterclaim against NECA. This matter is presently before the court upon NECA's motion for judgment on the pleadings on the counterclaim. Having carefully reviewed the arguments of the parties, the court is now prepared to rule.
The counterclaim contains two counts. In Count I, the Kansas Chapter "seeks a declaration that plaintiff has no authority to continue to create dissension within the Kansas Chapter or to manage the affairs of the Kansas Chapter." The Kansas Chapter requests a preliminary and permanent injunction against NECA. In Count II, the Kansas Chapter seeks damages from NECA for tortious interference with the Chapter's collective bargaining agreement with International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local 226 (IBEW Local 226).
A Rule 12(c) motion for judgment on the pleadings is governed by the same standards as a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. Mock v. TGY, 971 F.2d 522, 528 (10th Cir. 1992). The court will dismiss a cause of action for failure to state a claim only when it appears beyond a doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of the theory of recovery that would entitle him or her to relief, Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957); Maher v. Durango Metals, Inc., 144 F.3d 1302, 1304 (10th Cir. 1998), or when an issue of law is dispositive. Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 326 (1989). The court accepts as true all well-pleaded facts, as distinguished from conclusory allegations, Maher, 144 F.3d at 1304, and all reasonable inferences from those facts are viewed in favor of the plaintiff.Witt v. Roadway Express, 136 F.3d 1424, 1428 (10th Cir. 1998). A motion for judgment on the pleadings can be converted to a motion for summary judgment if matters outside the pleadings are presented and not excluded by the court. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(c).
COUNT I
The court shall first turn to the defendants' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief. The Kansas Chapter "seeks a declaration that plaintiff has no authority to continue to create dissension within the Kansas Chapter or to manage the affairs of the Kansas Chapter." The Kansas Chapter further requests a preliminary and permanent injunction against NECA. The court has carefully considered this issue in its order of April 16, 1999. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Kansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, Inc., 46 F. Supp.2d 1174 (D.Kan. 1999). In that order, we reached the following conclusions:
The evidence presently before the court shows that NECA had the authority to implement the sponsorship, the sponsorship was duly requested by 40% of the Chapter's membership, NECA properly implemented the sponsorship in accordance with its Constitution and Bylaws, and defendants Mylenek and Anderson, in their individual capacities and as agents of the Chapter, failed and refused to recognize sponsorship and have actively interfered with its implementation.Id. at 1184.
This order was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals on February 2, 2000. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, Inc. v. Kansas Chapter, National Electrical Contractors Ass'n, Inc., 203 F.3d 835, 2000 WL 123758 (10th Cir. 2000). The Tenth Circuit specifically determined that the evidence adequately supported each of the aforementioned rulings made by this court. Id., 2000 WL 123758 at ** 4-5.
Whether we treat the instant motion as one for judgment on the pleadings or as one for summary judgment, we are convinced that the defendants' claim for declaratory relief lacks merit. The court sees no prejudice to the defendants in treating this motion as one for summary judgment since they have referred to documents and evidence outside the pleadings in responding to this motion. The evidence and legal authorities presented to the court clearly indicate that NECA acted appropriately in implementing the sponsorship. Accordingly, NECA is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
COUNT II
The court shall next turn to the defendants' claim for tortious interference with contract. NECA argues that this claim fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because (1) the Kansas Chapter failed to allege a breach of contract; (2) there was no breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the IBEW under controlling federal law; (3) even if the IBEW breached the agreement, there would be no causal nexus between the alleged breach and NECA's contact, as the alleged wrongful breach occurred after the alleged breach by the IBEW; (4) all of NECA's actions were privileged and/or justified under NECA's Constitution and By-laws; (5) the Kansas Chapter lacks standing to allege a claim for damages to the trust funds; and (6) the Kansas Chapter is not authorized to bring this action under the Articles of Sponsorship.
For most, if not all, of the reasons asserted by NECA, the court finds that dismissal of the defendants' tortious interference of contract claim is proper. In Kansas, the elements of a claim for tortious interference with a contract are (1) the contract; (2) the wrongdoer's knowledge thereof; (3) his intentional procurement of its breach; (4) the absence of justification; and (5) damages resulting therefrom. Dickens v. Snodgrass, Dunlap Co., 255 Kan. 164, 872 P.2d 252, 257 (1994). In addition to the five elements, an action for tortious interference with a contract "is predicated on malicious conduct by the defendant." Id. As argued by NECA, the defendants have failed, inter alia, to allege an actual breach of contract. Without such an allegation, this claim must fail and be dismissed. NECA has asserted several other reasons why this claim must fail, and we find many of those meritorious as well. The court notes, as did NECA, that the defendants simply failed to respond to several of their challenges. The court views such a response as a concession of defeat on these arguments. Accordingly, the court shall grant NECA's motion and dismiss the defendants' counterclaim for tortious interference with a contract.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to dismiss for judgment on the pleadings on the counterclaim (Doc. # 45) be hereby granted. The counterclaim(s) of the defendants are hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.