Van Kirk v. United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO ( 2022 )

1 WO 2 3 4 5 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 8 9 Michael Van Kirk, et al., No. CV-20-01961-PHX-SMB 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 Local 469 United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the 13 Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry of the United States and Canada, AFL-CIO, et al., 14 15 Defendants. 16 Pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(1) Motion for Relief from the 17 Court’s July 6, 2022 Order. (Doc. 110.) Defendants filed a Response (Doc. 118) and 18 Plaintiffs filed a Reply (Doc. 125). Plaintiffs requested oral argument (see Doc. 110 at 1), 19 but seeing as the Motion is fully briefed, the Court exercises its discretion to decline the 20 request as it would be unnecessary. See LRCiv 7.2(f) (“The Court may decide motions 21 without oral argument.”). After considering the parties’ arguments and the relevant law, 22 the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(1) Motion for the following reasons. 23 I. BACKGROUND 24 In its July 6, 2022 Order, the Court resolved the parties’ competing motions for 25 summary judgment. See Kirk v. Local 469 United Ass’n of Journeyman and Apprentices 26 of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Indus. of the U.S. and Can., AFL-CIO, No. CV-20-01961- 27 PHX-SMB, 2022 WL 2473429, at *1 (D. Ariz. July 6, 2022). The Court granted in part 28 and denied in part both parties’ summary judgment motions and ultimately ordered 1 Defendants to produce itemized credit card receipts from May 16, 2014 through 2017. Id. 2 at *6–7. Plaintiffs then moved for relief under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(1) 3 “on grounds of mistake and inadvertence.” (Doc. 110 at 1.) 4 II. LEGAL STANDARD 5 Rule 60(b)(1) allows courts to “relieve a party or its legal representative from a final 6 judgment, order, or proceeding for . . . mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable 7 neglect.” “Rule 60(b) provides for extraordinary relief and may be invoked only upon a 8 showing of exceptional circumstances.” Engleson v. Burlington N.R. Co., 972 F.2d 1038, 9 1044 (9th Cir. 1992) (cleaned up). Rule 60(b)(1)’s “mistake” provision permits 10 “reconsideration of judgments only where: (1) a party has made an excusable litigation 11 mistake or an attorney in the litigation has acted without authority from a party, or (2) 12 where the judge has made a substantive mistake of law or fact in the final judgment or 13 order.” Sheldon v. Vermonty, 189 F.R.D. 444, 446 (D. Kan. 1999). “Like a motion to 14 reconsider, a motion under Rule 60(b) is not a second opportunity for the losing party to 15 make its strongest case, to rehash arguments, or to dress up arguments that previously 16 failed.” Kustom Signals, Inc. v. Applied Concepts, Inc., 247 F.Supp.2d 1233, 1235 (D. 17 Kan. 2003). 18 III. DISCUSSION 19 Plaintiffs identify no legal or factual errors that warrant Rule 60(b)(1) relief. 20 Plaintiffs argue the Court erred in its analysis of whether Defendant Butler violated Section 21 9.12 of Local 469’s bylaws (“Section 9.12”) by not determining whether Butler was 22 “withholding documents in any of the categories sought by Plaintiffs.” (Doc. 110 at 4–5.) 23 Plaintiffs further dispute the Court’s finding that Defendant Butler did not violate his 24 fiduciary duties. (Doc. 110 at 7.) Plaintiffs also argue the Court erred when it limited 25 Plaintiffs’ right of access “to only those receipts from May 16, 2014 through the end of 26 2017.” (See Doc. 110 at 3–4.) The Court will address each in turn. 27 Without citation to contrary legal authority, Plaintiffs seem to suggest the Court 28 erred in giving deference to Defendant Butler’s interpretation of Section 9.12. On this 1 basis, Plaintiffs assert the Court should have determined whether the Defendants violated 2 Section 9.12 by “withholding documents in any of the categories sought by Plaintiffs,” in 3 addition to any entitlement to access under the LMRDA. (Doc. 110 at 5.) Plaintiffs 4 misstate the Court’s ruling. The Court found no violations of Section 9.12 because the 5 caselaw establishes that a union’s interpretation of its own bylaws is entitled to deference. 6 See N.L.R.B. v. Electra-Food Mach., Inc., 621 F.2d 956, 958 (9th Cir. 1980). While 7 Plaintiffs offered their own interpretation of Section 9.12, they (again) failed to establish 8 why Defendant Butler’s interpretation was unreasonable. Because the Court found no 9 violations of Section 9.12, it follows that the Court did not fail to consider whether 10 Plaintiffs were entitled to more access to itemized credit card receipts than was provided 11 under the LMRDA. Plaintiffs conceded that without a violation of Section 9.12, the Court 12 cannot find Defendant Butler breached his fiduciary duty. Kirk, 2022 WL 2473429, at *11. 13 The Court thus denies Plaintiffs’ request for Rule 60(b) relief on these bases. 14 Plaintiffs similarly fail to cite legal authority to support their position that the 15 LMRDA provides them “broader” access outside the deadline cited in the Court’s July 6, 16 2022 Order. See id. at *7 (limiting Plaintiffs’ request for itemized receipts to those 17 originating from May 16, 2014 through the end of 2017). Plaintiffs’ Motion does not 18 necessarily dispute the second (and most relevant) limitation provided by the LMRDA— 19 that the documents sought be “necessary” to verify an LM-2 report, see id. at 6 (citing 29 20 U.S.C. § 431(c)). Plaintiffs instead argue that Section 9.12 permits them greater access 21 than the statute, “even under Defendant Butler’s construction of [the] language.” (Doc. 22 110 at 6.) The Court reiterates that Defendant Butler’s interpretation of Section 9.12 was 23 reasonable, and that interpretation provided members “a right to inspect, but not copy, the 24 ‘books.’” (Doc. 73 at 15); see also Kirk, 2022 WL 2473429, at *10. The Court’s July 6 25 Order required Defendants to produce itemized credit card receipts as required by the 26 LMRDA, subject to the relevant limitations. See Kirk, 2022 WL 2473429, at *11. By 27 finding and reconfirming that Defendant Butler did not violate Section 9.12, the Court did 28 and does impliedly reject any entitlement to Defendants’ production of those receipts under || Local 469’s bylaws. Rule 60(b) relief is thus not available on this basis. 2 IV. CONCLUSION 3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS ORDERED denying Plaintiffs’ Rule 60(b)(1) Motion. (Doc. 110.) 5 Dated this Ist day of December, 2022. 6 — 7 — s > 8 > fonorable Susan M, Brovich 9 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -_4-