Mullins v. International Brotherhood Teamsters
- Edward Chen
- 3:23-cv-03939
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Mullins v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Judge Chen granted defendants’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal and stayed the case.
The plaintiffs and defendants in the case are affected. The case is stayed while the Ninth Circuit decides whether to accept the certified interlocutory appeal.
What happened
In Thomsa Neal Mullins, et al. v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, et al., the defendants asked the court to certify an intermediate appeal from an earlier ruling on the plaintiffs’ claims under the Railway Labor Act.
The earlier ruling held that the Act gives an individual the right to pursue a grievance even when the union does not want to pursue it. The defendants argued that this legal question could control the case, that courts disagree about it, and that an immediate appeal could advance the litigation.
The court agreed and granted the defendants’ motion to certify an interlocutory appeal. Judge Edward Chen also stayed the case while the Ninth Circuit decides whether to accept the appeal, and ordered the parties to file a status report after that decision.
The detailed version
- Mullins v. International Brotherhood Teamsters · No. 3:23-cv-03939
- Edward Chen
- May 23, 2025
Background
The United Defendants and Union Defendants jointly moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) to certify an interlocutory appeal. Section 1292(b) permits a district court to certify an otherwise nonappealable order for possible immediate review when the order presents a controlling legal question, there is substantial disagreement about that question, and an immediate appeal could materially advance the end of the litigation.
The motion concerned the court’s earlier order on a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). In that earlier order, the court held that the Railway Labor Act gives an individual the right to pursue a grievance independently even if the union does not wish to pursue it. The court stated that the plaintiffs’ statutory due process claim under the Railway Labor Act was the only claim that survived the motion to dismiss; the other claims had been dismissed.
Court’s Analysis
The court concluded that the issue was a controlling question of law because it concerned whether the claim exists as a matter of law. It also found substantial grounds for disagreement because courts, including circuit courts, have reached different conclusions about whether the Railway Labor Act gives individual employees the right to take a grievance to the appropriate adjustment board. The court noted that the Ninth Circuit had not yet ruled on the issue.
The court further concluded that an immediate appeal could materially advance the litigation. If the Ninth Circuit disagreed with the district court’s ruling, the entire lawsuit would be dismissed because the Railway Labor Act claim was the only remaining claim.
The court acknowledged that § 1292(b) authorizes an appeal from an order, not merely from one legal issue within an order. The earlier order also addressed claims that had been dismissed, and the plaintiffs could ask the Ninth Circuit to review those claims even though they did not involve the controlling legal question identified for certification. The court considered whether entering a final judgment would be simpler, but identified obstacles including the procedural posture of the ruling, the absence of filed answers, the plaintiffs’ class claims, and unresolved questions about final judgment and injunctive relief.
Disposition
The court granted Defendants’ motion to certify for an interlocutory appeal. It stayed proceedings pending the Ninth Circuit’s decision on whether to accept the appeal and ordered the parties to file a status report within one week after that decision. The order disposed of Docket No. 96.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.