The Estate of William Scales v. ATU Local 1181

Background

The plaintiff filed a complaint against ATU Local 1181, invoking federal-question and diversity jurisdiction. The complaint identified the plaintiff as “The Estate of Williams Scales,” but it was signed by William Scales. The court stated that it was clear Scales filed the action on his own behalf and therefore treated Scales as the sole plaintiff.

Scales appeared without a lawyer. He alleged that the union’s “neglect” and “failure of representation” caused him not to receive workers’ compensation benefits on two occasions: during medical leave for COVID-19 and during medical leave for cancer treatment. He identified the relevant period as multiple dates from 2019 through 2022 and sought unspecified monetary damages.

Rule 8 and federal claims

The court reviewed the complaint under the standards that apply to complaints filed without prepaying filing fees. Those standards require dismissal of claims that are frivolous, malicious, fail to state a claim for relief, or seek money from an immune defendant. The court also explained that a complaint must provide a short and plain statement showing a plausible entitlement to relief.

The court found that the complaint did not satisfy that requirement because it provided no facts beyond the assertion that the union had negligently failed to represent Scales and that he did not receive workers’ compensation. The court said it needed, at a minimum, the identity of Scales’s employer, the timing of the alleged violations, and facts explaining what ATU Local 1181 did or failed to do that caused the denial of benefits or otherwise violated Scales’s rights.

Because Scales sued his union and appeared to allege inadequate representation, the court construed the complaint as potentially asserting a hybrid Section 301/duty-of-fair-representation claim. Such a claim generally requires allegations that both the employer breached a collective bargaining agreement and the union breached its duty to fairly represent the employee. The court found that Scales did not identify his employer, allege an employer breach, describe the union’s duty, or explain how the union breached that duty.

The court also said that any such federal claim appeared potentially time-barred. The applicable limitations period is six months, beginning when the employee knew or should have known of the union’s breach. Although Scales alleged events occurring through 2022, he did not allege facts showing that he learned of a breach within six months before filing the action on October 11, 2023. He also alleged no facts supporting an exception that would extend the filing period.

State-law claims and jurisdiction

The court understood Scales to be asserting negligence claims under state law. Although he invoked diversity jurisdiction, he did not provide enough information to show that the parties were citizens of different states. He alleged that he resided in New York and supplied a New York address for ATU Local 1181, but he did not identify how the union was organized or, if it was an unincorporated association, the citizenship of its members.

Scales also did not state the amount of damages he sought or allege facts showing that his claims exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold for diversity jurisdiction. The court therefore could not determine whether it had diversity jurisdiction over the state-law claims. It deferred deciding whether to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over those claims because Scales was being allowed to amend and the federal claims might not remain in the case.

Disposition

The court granted Scales leave to file an amended complaint within 60 days. The amended complaint must provide a short and plain statement of the facts supporting each claim, identify relevant people and defendants, describe what each defendant did or failed to do, give approximate dates and locations, describe injuries, and state the requested relief. The amended complaint will replace the original complaint, so any facts or claims Scales wants to preserve must be repeated in it.

The order did not dismiss the claims at that stage. It stated that if Scales failed to amend within the allowed period and could not show good cause, his federal claims would be dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court would decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims. The court also certified that an appeal would not be taken in good faith and denied fee-free status for purposes of an appeal.