Vandermark v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association,
- Vernon Broderick
- 1:15-cv-00483
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 23
In Vandermark v. LEEBA, Judge Broderick granted summary judgment after finding the plaintiffs’ union-records claim moot.
The three plaintiffs—Marshall Vandermark, Robert Mateer, and Thomas Terminelle—lost their federal union-records claim and their related state-law claims were left for possible resolution outside federal court; LEEBA and Kenneth Wynder prevailed on the motion.
What happened
In Vandermark v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association, three plaintiffs sought access to LEEBA’s financial records under a federal labor law. They also brought claims under New York law.
The court found that none of the plaintiffs had shown they were current LEEBA members. Two had sent letters resigning their memberships, and the third had retired and stopped paying dues. Because the federal law allowed this type of lawsuit only by union members, the court found the federal claim moot and dismissed the plaintiffs’ claims.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining New York claims. He directed the Clerk of Court to close the case.
The detailed version
- Vandermark v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association, · No. 1:15-cv-00483
- Vernon Broderick
- Oct. 6, 2021
Background
Marshall Vandermark, Robert Mateer, and Thomas Terminelle sued the Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and Kenneth Wynder, its former president. The plaintiffs asserted a claim under Title II of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, a federal law requiring labor organizations to make certain financial information available and allowing a union member, for good cause, to examine records needed to verify that information. The plaintiffs sought LEEBA’s financial disclosures, books, and records from 2005 onward. They also asserted claims under New York Labor Law and sought attorney’s fees and costs.
The defendants moved for summary judgment, which is a request to rule without a trial because the evidence shows no genuine dispute requiring a trial.
Membership and federal claim
The court found that Mateer and Terminelle had resigned from LEEBA. Each sent LEEBA a letter stating that he resigned his union membership and ended authorization for dues deductions. Although the plaintiffs argued that the letters only opted them out of paying dues, the court determined that the letters’ express resignation language, the circumstances surrounding them, and the fact that neither person continued paying dues showed that both had resigned.
The court also found that Vandermark had not shown that he remained a LEEBA member after retiring from the New York City Department of Environmental Protection in 2015. He had not paid dues after retirement, had not sought reinstatement, and did not testify that he remained a member. The court noted that the governing bylaws’ treatment of retirement was unclear, but concluded that the record did not show that Vandermark was still a member.
The court interpreted the federal statute’s right to sue as applying only to members of the relevant labor organization. Because the plaintiffs were no longer LEEBA members while the case was pending, the court held that they no longer had a continuing personal interest in obtaining the requested records. It therefore found the federal claim moot, meaning that the court could no longer grant effective relief, and concluded that it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over that claim. The court also rejected the plaintiffs’ request for attorney’s fees and costs as a basis for continuing the case because they had not obtained a favorable judgment.
State-law claims and disposition
The New York Labor Law claims depended on supplemental jurisdiction, which allows a federal court to hear related state-law claims. After dismissing the only claim over which it had original federal-question jurisdiction, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state-law claims.
Judge Vernon S. Broderick granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The opinion states that the plaintiffs’ claims were dismissed, directs the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion and close the case, and does not state that the dismissal was with or without prejudice.
Read the full 23-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.