Opinion
Case No. 1:22-cv-21644-KMM
2023-10-23
Julie SU, Acting Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. LOCAL 568, TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant.
Veronica Vanessa Harrell-James, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, Chantel Doakes Shelton, DOJ-USAO, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff. Osnat Kate Rind, Phillips, Richard & Rind, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant.
Veronica Vanessa Harrell-James, United States Attorney's Office, Miami, FL, Chantel Doakes Shelton, DOJ-USAO, Miami, FL, for Plaintiff.
Osnat Kate Rind, Phillips, Richard & Rind, P.A., Miami, FL, for Defendant.
ORDER
K. MICHAEL MOORE, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
THIS CAUSE came before the Court upon Plaintiff Julie Su's, Acting Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor ("Plaintiff") Motion for Reconsideration of Order Granting Defendant Summary Judgment and Denying Plaintiff Summary Judgment. ("Motion" or "Mot.") (ECF No. 45). Therein, Plaintiff requests reconsideration of the Court's Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment, see ("Order") (ECF No. 43), and asks the Court to correct what Plaintiff avers are clear errors of law. See generally Mot. Defendant Local 568, Transport Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO ("Defendant") filed a response in opposition ("Resp.") (ECF No. 50), and Plaintiff filed a reply ("Reply") (ECF No. 53). The matter is now ripe for review.
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND AND
The facts are summarized from the findings contained in the Court's Order. See Order at 2-4.
Plaintiff filed this suit on behalf of Local 568 member Luis Rodriguez-Serrano. To briefly summarize the relevant background, Rodriguez-Serrano was elected President of Local 568 in December 2018. Shortly thereafter, Rodriguez-Serrano created the Communications Committee where he possessed certain passwords for the Local 568 social media accounts and website. Rodriguez-Serrano did not share the passwords as directed, and in May 2020, Rodriguez-Serrano was removed as Chair of the Communications Committee. On July 22, 2020, the Executive Board brought a motion to suspend Rodriguez-Serrano for failure to follow Executive Board directives. Rodriguez-Serrano was directed to appear before the Executive Board on July 31, 2020 (the "2020 Hearing"), for a hearing on the charges. Following the hearing, the Board removed Rodriguez-Serrano from office and declared him a member in bad standing for a period of three years.
Approximately one year and four months later, on December 15, 2021, Local 568 held an election for the Executive Board. Rodriguez-Serrano expressed interest in running for President, but the Election Committee Chair denied him the ability to do so because Rodriguez-Serrano was a member in bad standing. Despite several pre-election protests, Rodriguez-Serrano was not listed on the ballot as a candidate.
On July 7, 2022, the Board held a de novo hearing (the "2022 Rehearing") of Rodriguez-Serrano's prior charges pursuant to Article XX of the TWU Constitution before a new three-member trial committee. Rodriguez-Serrano chose not to participate in the hearing. The trial committee found Rodriguez-Serrano guilty of the charges and recommended that he be placed in bad standing for a period of three years, applied retroactively from July 31, 2020. The Local 568 Executive Board accepted the findings and recommendations of the trial committee.
After Rodriguez-Serrano exhausted his administrative remedies, Plaintiff filed the instant Complaint on Rodriguez-Serrano's behalf, alleging that the 2020 Hearing was tainted by several violations of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, §§ 401, 402, 29 U.S.C. §§ 481-83 ("LMRDA" or the "Act"). Plaintiff and Defendant filed cross-motions for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 26, 28). The Court issued the Order granting Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denying Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. See generally Order. The Court summarized its findings as follows:
In sum, the Court finds that the 2022 Rehearing sufficiently vindicated Rodriguez-Serrano's Section 101(a)(5)(C) right to a "full and fair hearing," regardless of any bias present at the 2020 Hearing. Because the 2022 Rehearing properly imposed a retroactive penalty preventing Rodriguez-Serrano's participation in elections for three years beginning on July 31, 2020, the Court holds that Rodriguez-Serrano is not entitled to the new election which he seeks.
Id. at 15. Now, Plaintiff moves the Court for an order of reconsideration. See generally Mot. For the following reasons, Plaintiff's Motion is denied.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
"Reconsideration is an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly." Holland v. Florida, No. 06-20182-CIV-SEITZ,
2007 WL 9705926, at *1 (S.D. Fla. June 26, 2007) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). "The only grounds for granting a motion for reconsideration 'are newly-discovered evidence or manifest errors of law or fact.'" United States v. Dean, 838 F. App'x 470, 471-72 (11th Cir. 2020) (quoting Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007) (per curiam)). A motion for reconsideration should raise new issues, not merely address issues litigated previously. Socialist Workers Party v. Leahy, 957 F. Supp. 1262, 1263 (S.D. Fla. 1997). "A party's disagreement with the court's decision, absent a showing of manifest error, is not sufficient to demonstrate entitlement to relief." Dean, 838 F. App'x at 472 (citing Jacobs v. Tempur-Pedic Int'l, Inc., 626 F.3d 1327, 1344 (11th Cir. 2010)).
III. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff raises two arguments in favor of reconsideration: (1) the Court erred because it analyzed the instant Action as if it was a private action filed pursuant to Title I of the LMRDA when, instead, this Action was filed by the Acting Secretary of Labor, which requires the Court to follow the enforcement scheme in Title IV of the LMRDA; and (2) the only statutory remedy for a Title IV violation is a new election conducted under the supervision of the Department of Labor. See Mot. at 3. In response, Defendant argues that Plaintiff is using this motion to relitigate matters which this Court has already considered and that there is no clear error or manifest injustice that would arise if the Motion for Reconsideration were not granted. See generally Resp. The Court addresses the arguments below.
A. Plaintiff is Not Entitled to Reconsideration of its Motion for Summary Judgment
In support of the instant Motion, Plaintiff raises arguments that the Court expressly considered in its Order. See generally Mot. Plaintiff argues that "[w]hen the Secretary files a civil action under Title IV, the Secretary is assuming the specific role designated by Congress to enforce 'a vital public interest in assuring free and democratic elections.'" See id. at 4 (quoting Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, 389 U.S. 463, 497-499, 88 S.Ct. 643, 19 L.Ed.2d 705 (1968)). According to Plaintiff, it "established a prima facie case by showing a Title IV violation (improper discipline of Rodriguez-Serrano) and that such violation affected the outcome of the December 15, 2021 election (Rodriguez-Serrano was not on the ballot)." Id. at 5. Plaintiff then asserts that because it demonstrated a meaningful relation between the violation and the election, and Defendant did not rebut this showing, that "this Court was required to remedy the Title Violation by ordering a new election conducted under the supervision of the Secretary." Id. at 5-6. To Plaintiff, the Court committed clear legal error when holding that the 2022 Rehearing could serve as a remedy under these circumstances. See id.
Plaintiff has already raised these arguments. For example, as the Court explained in its Order, "Plaintiff takes the position that the 2022 Rehearing 'ha[d] no legal impact on [the Department of Labor's] instant claim under Title IV.'" See Order at 8 (citations omitted) (alterations in original). In its response in opposition to Defendant's Motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff argued that it "alleges a violation of Title IV of the LMRDA, not Title I." (ECF No. 32 at 12). In its summary judgment motion, Plaintiff argued that a supervised election was the required Title IV remedy. See (ECF No. 28 at 14-15); see also (ECF No. 32 at 12-13) ("[b]y statute, the only remedy for a Title IV
violation is a new election"). In its reply memorandum in support of its motion for summary judgment, Plaintiff asserted that "the July 7, 2022 hearing cannot retroactively cure the effect of the section 401(e) violation on the December 15, 2021 election" and that the "only statutory remedy... is a new election." (ECF No. 37 at 9-10).
And, not only has Plaintiff asserted these arguments before, but the Court also specifically considered and rejected them:
Plaintiff argues Rodriguez-Serrano is entitled to void and conduct anew the December 15, 2021 election. See Pl. Mot at 14-15 ("The sole statutory remedy for a violation of the LMRDA is specific — a new election conducted under the supervision of the Secretary."); see also 29 U.S.C. § 482(b). Plaintiff's theory, however, improperly assumes that a violation still exists. On July 27, 2022, after the trial de novo, a representative of the Executive Board informed Rodriguez-Serrano that he had once again been found guilty. See Post-Rehearing Notice at 1-2. The letter also informed Rodriguez-Serrano that his penalty would be "suspen[sion] from participating in union affairs until the initial three years bad standing penalty would have been expired." Id. at 2 (emphasis added). This penalty was properly applied, as the 2022 Rehearing appears to have been duly held under Article XX of the Local 568 Constitution and Plaintiff provides no argument to the contrary. See (ECF No. 27-1) at 55-57; Pl. Mot. at 15 n.2 ("[Plaintiff] has limited knowledge of this proceeding and takes no position regarding the lawfulness of these subsequent Article XX proceedings."). And the penalty itself is specifically phrased to be retroactive, relating back to the date Rodriguez-Serrano's original penalty was imposed in July of 2020. Post-Rehearing Notice at 2; see also (ECF No. 29-21) (informing Rodriguez-Serrano that his three-year ineligibility to run for office began on July 31, 2020).
Order at 11-12.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that based on the 2022 Rehearing, no violation continued to exist, and thus, ordering a new election was unnecessary. See id. The Court explained that it "only determines that any potential bias against Rodriguez-Serrano at the 2020 Hearing was cured by an untainted 2022 Rehearing with the same verdict. In doing so, the Court evades the far more imposing step of voiding a years-old election and requiring the conduction of that election anew; such a solution is perfectly consistent with congressional intent." Id. at 14 (citations omitted).
Not only did Plaintiff raise the same arguments in the instant Motion as it did in its motion for summary judgment, but the Court gave these arguments extended consideration. A Rule 59(e) motion "may not be used to relitigate old matters." Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 485 n.5, 128 S.Ct. 2605, 171 L.Ed.2d 570 (2008); see also Arthur v. King, 500 F.3d 1335, 1343 (11th Cir. 2007). But relitigating old matters is precisely what Plaintiff does in this Motion. Court opinions "are not intended as mere first drafts, subject to revision and reconsideration at a litigant's pleasure." Am. Ass'n of People With Disabilities v. Hood, 278 F. Supp. 2d 1337, 1339 (M.D. Fla. 2003) (citation omitted). As such, the Court will not revise its Order and grant Plaintiff's Motion.
B. There is No Clear Error of Law or Manifest Injustice
Notwithstanding that Plaintiff asserts identical arguments in this Motion as it has done on multiple prior occasions,
the Court does not find its Order contained any clear error of law or that manifest injustice will occur. See Dean, 838 F. App'x at 472. Clear error exists when a court has a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made." Easley v. Cromartie, 532 U.S. 234, 242, 121 S.Ct. 1452, 149 L.Ed.2d 430 (2001) (citation omitted); Howzell v. Saul, 20-90142-CIV, 2020 WL 5077029, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 27, 2020) ("To be clearly erroneous, a decision must strike us as more than just maybe or probably wrong; it must ... strike us as wrong with the force of a five-week-old unrefrigerated dead fish."). Indeed, "[a]n error is not 'clear and obvious' if the legal issues are 'at least arguable.'" United States v. Battle, 272 F. Supp. 2d 1354, 1358 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (quoting Am. Home Assurance Co. v. Glenn Assocs., Inc., 763 F.2d 1237, 1239 (11th Cir. 1985)).
The Court does not find that its Order was clearly erroneous. First, Plaintiff argues that the Court "ignores controlling precedent." Reply at 2. Not so. After asserting that there exists binding precedent, Plaintiff identifies just one case, from the District of Connecticut, where the court found that a new election was required under similar factual circumstances. See id. at 4-5 (citing Scalia v. Local 933, New Haven Fed'n of Teachers, No. 3-20-cv-00458, 2021 WL 1058616 (D. Conn. Mar. 18, 2021)). Despite Plaintiff's claim about controlling precedent, its identification of only one factually analogous case from a separate district court exemplifies the rarity of this case. There is no controlling precedent which addresses the effect of a trial de novo in a Title IV claim, much less when that claim is based on the alleged unfair hearing and biased tribunal that a union member faced in a hearing which disqualified him from an executive board election. See Resp. at 9. Plaintiff has therefore failed to demonstrate that it is entitled to reconsideration based on the Court's alleged failure to adhere to controlling precedent.
Further, though Plaintiff has insisted that pursuant to Title IV, the Court is statutorily mandated to order a new election, that is not necessarily true. When addressing the text of Section 402(b) of the LMRDA, namely, that when "the violation of Section 401 may have affected the outcome of an election, the court shall declare the election, if any, to be void and direct the conduct of a new election under supervision of the Secretary," the Supreme Court "cautioned against a literal reading of congressional labor legislation." Wirtz v. Local 153, Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, 389 U.S. 463, 468, 88 S.Ct. 643, 19 L.Ed.2d 705 (1968) (citation omitted). Drawing on the Supreme Court's instruction, multiple circuit courts have explained that ordering a new election in the context of an LMRDA violation is not mandatory; rather, a court may craft an equitable remedy to address the facts of the case and comport with congressional intent. See McLaughlin v. Lodge 647, Intern. Broth. Of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers, and Helpers, 876 F.2d 648, 652-654 (8th Cir. 1989) ("As the decision to order an election rests solely in the hands of the federal district court, we believe the court also possesses the equitable authority to accept or reject the Secretary's proposed remedy in Title IV cases and to make an independent decision as to whether that remedy is needed under the circumstances in each case."); Marshall v. Local 1010, United Steelworkers of Am., AFL-CIO, CLC, 664 F.2d 144, 149 (7th Cir. 1981) ("We agree with the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit that a suit under Section 482 of the LMRDA seeking an injunction to set aside a union election is essentially an equitable proceeding and is therefore governed by equitable principles.");
Usery v. Int'l Org. of Masters, Mates, and Pilots, 538 F.2d 946, 950-51 (2d Cir. 1976) (applying equity principles to determine whether the Secretary was entitled to hold a new election under his supervision); Donovan v. Local 6, Washington Teachers' Union, AFL-CIO, 747 F.2d 711, 717 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 1984) (acknowledging that a suit seeking a new election under Section 482 "is essentially an equitable proceeding"). On the other hand, the Ninth and Tenth Circuits have held that ordering a new election is statutorily mandated. See Hodgson v. Local Union 400, Bakery & Confectionery Workers' Int'l Union of Am., 491 F.2d 1348 (9th Cir. 1974); Usery v. District 22, United Mine Workers of Am., 543 F.2d 744 (10th Cir. 1976). The Eleventh Circuit is yet to opine on this question. See Resp. at 9.
Considering that the Supreme Court has cautioned against a literal reading of labor legislation and that the Act's "proper construction frequently requires consideration of its wording against the background of its legislative history and in the light of the general objectives Congress sought to achieve," the Court agrees that this suit is an equitable proceeding. Glass Bottle Blowers Ass'n, 389 U.S. at 468, 88 S.Ct. 643. Such a finding "prevents the Secretary from infringing the union's right to self-government when an intrusion is unwarranted" and allows the Court "to fashion a remedy to fit the needs of affected union members in each case." See Lodge 647, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, 876 F.2d at 652.
The ordering of a new election here would be inequitable given that, as the Court explained in its Order, "[t]he 2022 Rehearing imposed a retroactive penalty preventing Rodriguez-Serrano's participation in elections for three years beginning on July 31, 2020." Order at 15. Therefore, as Defendant identifies, "the [2022 Rehearing] cured the alleged violation that formed the basis of [Plaintiff's claim] ... Mr. Rodriguez-Serrano was guilty as charged; all of the incumbents who participated in the July 31, 2020 hearing lost in the December 2021 election; and none of the current members of the Executive Board had anything to do with the original proceeding." Resp. at 10. Because the Court has found that the 2022 Rehearing cured any potential violation of the LMRDA based on the alleged unfairness and bias Rodriguez-Serrano faced in the 2020 Hearing, and that alleged violation is the sole basis of Plaintiff's claim, the Court reaffirms its holding that it would be inequitable to order a new election under these circumstances.
The Court finds that there was no clear error of law in its analysis nor any manifest injustice which would warrant granting Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, UPON CONSIDERATION of the Motion, the pertinent portions of the record, and being otherwise fully advised in the premises, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion (ECF No. 45) is DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, this 23rd day of October 2023.