Huerta v. First Solar, Inc., a Delaware corporation

Background

CSI Electrical Contractors, Inc. moved for judgment on the pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(c). Its motion depended on the argument that Huerta’s employment was governed by a qualifying collective bargaining agreement. CSI asked the court to take judicial notice—formally accept certain facts or documents without requiring ordinary proof—of two agreements: an Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 collective bargaining agreement and the Project Labor Agreement for the California Flats Solar Project.

The opinion states that neither agreement referred to Milco National Constructors, Inc., identified as Huerta’s employer, or to CSI, to whom Huerta was subcontracted. The agreements also did not refer to Huerta, and one appeared to be unsigned. With its reply brief, CSI submitted another request for judicial notice concerning an Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 dispatch document assigning Huerta to the project. That request did not include proof authenticating the document.

Parties’ Arguments

CSI argued that the Project Labor Agreement covered construction work at the California Flats Solar Facility and that Operating Engineers Local 3 was a party to that agreement. CSI also argued that the dispatch document supported applying the agreement to Huerta.

Huerta objected to the second request for judicial notice. He argued that the document’s contents were not proper subjects for judicial notice, that it was unauthenticated and hearsay, that it did not establish that he worked for CSI, and that submitting it with the reply brief was improper. The opinion also notes that the parties disputed whether the collective bargaining agreements applied, including whether Huerta’s employer was a signatory and whether one agreement was properly signed and executed.

Court’s Analysis

The court explained that a Rule 12(c) motion challenges the legal sufficiency of the pleadings and generally asks whether the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, assuming the complaint’s material allegations are true. The court may consider materials subject to judicial notice, including matters of public record, but it may not use judicial notice to resolve disputed facts or disputed applicability of documents.

The court agreed with Huerta that CSI’s second request was improper because raising new issues and submitting new facts in a reply brief is improper. The court also found that the disputed applicability of the agreements made the first request for judicial notice improper at this stage. Resolving those disputes would require deciding issues about the parties’ relationships and the agreements’ execution, which was inappropriate on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.

The court further stated that the issues were more appropriate for a motion for summary judgment. It also noted that the motion appeared not to dispose of an entire cause of action and referenced an intervening order in another case involving essentially identical issues.

Disposition

The court denied the requests for judicial notice and found that it would be improper to consider the identified documents at that point. It denied the motion for judgment on the pleadings without prejudice to CSI raising the issue in a motion for summary judgment. The opinion does not decide whether the collective bargaining agreements ultimately apply to Huerta.

Judge

Beth Labson Freeman, United States District Judge, signed the order.