Karlene Petitt v. Air Line Pilots Association ( 2022 )

NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS MAY 24 2022
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
KARLENE K. PETITT, No. 21-35494
Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01093-RSL
v.
MEMORANDUM*
AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, AKA
ALPA,
Defendant-Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Western District of Washington
Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding
Submitted May 17, 2022**
Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges.
Karlene K. Petitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her
action alleging breach of the duty of fair representation in connection with an
arbitration hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de
novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa,
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm.
The district court properly dismissed Petitt’s action because Petitt failed to
allege facts sufficient to show that her union attorney’s representation of her during
an arbitration hearing, or the actions of the union-appointed arbitration board
members, were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See Beck v. United Food
& Com. Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2007)
(discussing requirements for a breach of duty of fair representation claim by a
union member); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid
dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to
state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are
not entitled to be assumed true (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)).
AFFIRMED.
2 21-35494