Braithwaite v. Francois
- Vyskocil
- 1:20-cv-07736
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 4
In Braithwaite v. Francois, Judge Vyskocil granted remand because the pre-election state-law claims did not create federal jurisdiction.
The ruling affects Paul Braithwaite and Anthony Gordon, the named defendants, Local 372, and the case’s forum: the lawsuit was directed back to New York Supreme Court.
What happened
Braithwaite v. Francois concerns Paul Braithwaite and Anthony Gordon, members of Local 372, who were running for union president and vice president. They sued current union officers and trustees in New York Supreme Court, alleging breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract and seeking access to union books before the election and restitution.
The defendants moved the case to federal court, arguing that the federal Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act governed the union election and provided the exclusive remedy. The plaintiffs asked the federal court to send the case back to state court.
Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand and directed the Clerk to return the case to New York Supreme Court and then close the federal case. She concluded that the lawsuit was not a challenge to an election and that the federal statute did not completely replace the plaintiffs’ state-law claims.
The detailed version
- Braithwaite v. Francois · No. 1:20-cv-07736
- Vyskocil
- Sept. 25, 2020
Background
Paul Braithwaite and Anthony Gordon are members of Local 372, a union representing non-teacher and non-security employees of the New York City Department of Education. They were running for president and vice president in an upcoming union election. They filed state-law claims in New York Supreme Court against Shaun Francois, David Keye, Antionio Jordon, Mayra Vega, Willie Mitchell, and Local 372. The claims alleged breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract against the current union president, treasurer, and several trustees in their personal capacities.
The complaint alleged that the defendants had mismanaged the union’s finances. It sought an injunction allowing the plaintiffs to examine the union’s books before the election and an order requiring the defendants to pay restitution.
Removal and Remand Issue
The defendants removed the case to federal court, arguing that the upcoming union election implicated the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, or LMRDA. They contended that the LMRDA governed union elections and provided the exclusive remedy for challenging them. The plaintiffs moved to remand, meaning they asked the federal court to return the case to state court.
Ordinarily, a case cannot be removed when the complaint alleges only state-law claims. A federal-law defense, including a defense based on federal preemption, generally is not enough to create federal jurisdiction. One exception is complete preemption, which applies when a federal statute both provides the exclusive cause of action for the asserted claim and establishes the procedures and remedies for that cause of action, with Congress intending the claim to be treated as arising under federal law.
Court’s Analysis
Judge Vyskocil concluded that the complete-preemption exception did not apply. The LMRDA states that existing rights and remedies for enforcing a union’s constitution and bylaws regarding elections before the election are not affected, while the LMRDA remedy for challenging an election that has already occurred is exclusive.
The court determined that this lawsuit was not an election challenge. Instead, it was a breach-of-fiduciary-duty case seeking expedited injunctive relief because of the upcoming election. The court also noted that the election had not yet occurred. Because the lawsuit was not a challenge to an already-conducted election, and because the statute preserves state-law challenges before an election, the court found no basis to treat the plaintiffs’ claims as arising under federal law.
Disposition
The court granted the plaintiffs’ motion to remand. The Clerk was directed to remand the case to New York Supreme Court and then close the federal case.
Read the full 4-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.