Susino v. Safeway
- Edward Davila
- 5:25-cv-01102
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 4
In Susino v. Safeway, Judge Davila granted dismissal without leave to amend because Susino’s labor claims remained legally deficient.
John Susino’s seven Labor Management Relations Act claims against Safeway, its employees, UFCW5, and its representatives were dismissed without leave to amend.
What happened
John Susino v. Safeway, Inc., et al. concerns seven claims brought by self-represented plaintiff John Susino against Safeway, its employees, UFCW5, and its representatives under the Labor Management Relations Act. Susino generally alleged that he was stalked, harassed, and terminated after refusing to join UFCW5.
The court said earlier problems remained: the National Labor Relations Board had primary authority over the claims, Susino had not completed required administrative steps, and the claims appeared untimely. The court also noted that Susino still had not identified the date of his termination or the legal provisions supporting each claim. The only date in the current complaint was October 13, 2020, when he reported an employee to Safeway’s hotline.
Judge Edward J. Davila granted Defendants’ third motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) without leave to amend. The court found that Susino had not stated a plausible claim and that further amendment would be futile.
The detailed version
- Susino v. Safeway · No. 5:25-cv-01102
- Edward Davila
- Aug. 18, 2026
Background
Self-represented plaintiff John Susino asserted seven claims under the Labor Management Relations Act against Safeway, four Safeway employees, United Food and Commercial Workers Union Five, and two union representatives. Susino generally alleged that he was stalked, harassed, and ultimately terminated from his employment at Safeway because he refused to join UFCW5.
The court considered Defendants’ third motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which tests whether a complaint states a legally sufficient claim. The court decided the motion without oral argument.
Court’s analysis
The court said its earlier dismissal orders had identified three problems: the National Labor Relations Board had primary jurisdiction over Susino’s claims, Susino had failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and he had not satisfied the applicable statute of limitations. The court found that the second amended complaint did not cure those deficiencies.
The court emphasized that claims under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act generally must be brought within six months after the employee discovers, or reasonably should discover, the alleged violations. In two earlier orders, the court had directed Susino to allege facts, including his termination date, that would allow the court to determine whether the claims were timely. After three rounds of pleadings, he still had not done so. The only date alleged in the current complaint was October 13, 2020, when Susino reported an employee named Mesa to Safeway’s reporting hotline.
The court also noted that the operative complaint described seven Labor Management Relations Act claims but did not identify the provisions of that Act supporting those claims. The court stated that this omission independently failed to satisfy the rule requiring a complaint to provide a short and plain statement showing entitlement to relief.
Disposition
The court found that Susino failed to state a plausible claim for relief and that the deficiencies could not be cured by further amendment. Judge Edward J. Davila therefore granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.