Vayani v. 146 West 29th Street Owners Corporation

Background

Abdul Khaliq Vayani brought this action representing himself against his employer and related managers, Service Employees International Union, Local 32BJ and related union defendants, and Local 32BJ benefit funds, trustees, and administrators. He alleged that the defendants prevented him from joining Local 32BJ and receiving coverage under the applicable collective bargaining agreement.

Vayani had brought an earlier action involving the same underlying events. In that earlier round of the case, the court held that various claims were barred by time limits or issue preclusion, and that Vayani lacked standing to bring certain claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed that decision.

Vayani filed this action in 2024. His First Amended Complaint was 304 pages long and alleged at least 30 causes of action. The court noted that most of the allegations repeated those from the earlier action. Vayani based two claims on additional events: an erroneous 2019 pension-fund letter that was later explained as an error, his 2020 visit to a union office, and his receipt of retirement-plan information in 2021.

Motions and Analysis

All defendants moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not plausibly state a legal claim. The Funds Defendants and Employer Defendants alternatively asked the court to convert their motions into motions for summary judgment. The court declined to do so because it relied only on materials properly considered at the complaint stage.

The court held that, except for the two claims based on the newer allegations, Vayani’s claims arose from the same facts as the earlier action. Claim preclusion, which prevents a party from bringing the same cause of action again after a final judgment, therefore barred claims based on events that had already occurred when the earlier complaint was filed.

The court also applied issue preclusion, which prevents a party from relitigating an issue already decided after a full and fair opportunity to litigate it. The earlier decision had determined that Vayani was not a Local 32BJ member and was not covered by the collective bargaining agreement. The court held that Vayani was therefore precluded from bringing claims challenging his exclusion from the union and the agreement.

The court further held that claims under the Labor Management Relations Act, the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, fraud claims, and a claim seeking to vacate the arbitration award remained barred by applicable statutes of limitations.

For the two claims based on the newer allegations, the court held that Vayani did not plausibly allege fraud on the court or perjury. The court viewed the 2019 letter as an error that the fund promptly corrected, found that the 2020 union-office interaction did not support fraud allegations, and found it unsurprising that Vayani received savings-plan information because he alleged that money remained in his savings account.

The court also rejected Vayani’s request under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60 to set aside the judgment in the earlier action. Rule 60 allows relief from a judgment in limited circumstances, including serious fraud affecting the judicial process. The court held that Vayani had not plausibly alleged such fraud and could not use Rule 60 to relitigate the earlier case. It dismissed those two claims for failure to plead a viable claim for relief.

Disposition

The defendants’ respective motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) were granted. The court dismissed the First Amended Complaint with prejudice because amendment would be futile and would unfairly prejudice the defendants. The Clerk was directed to enter judgment dismissing the case with prejudice and close the case.

The Employer Defendants’ motion under Rules 12(b)(2), 12(b)(4), and 12(b)(5) was denied as moot because the claims were dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6). The Employer Defendants’ motion to strike Vayani’s response memorandum was also denied as moot. The court did not reach the defendants’ arguments that the complaint violated the rule requiring a short and plain statement of the claim.