David Parmeter v. American Federatin of Musician

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION AUG 05 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U .S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DAVID PARMETER, et al., No. 09-55858
Plaintiffs/Appellants,
v. MEMORANDUM *
AMERICAN FEDERATION OF
MUSICIANS OF THE UNITED STATES
AND CANADA, et al.,
Defendants/Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Margaret M. Morrow, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted June 8, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: NELSON and GOULD, Circuit Judges, and DOWD, Senior District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as
provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
**
The Honorable David D. Dowd, Jr., Senior District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio, sitting by designation.
Plaintiffs David Parmeter, Anatoly Rosinsky, and Andrew Shulman appeal
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant American
Federation of Musicians of the United States and Canada (“AFM”), and defendant
Professional Musicians Local 47, American Federation of Musicians (“Local 47"),
on plaintiffs’ complaint alleging breach of contract and breach of the duty of fair
representation regarding the collection of work dues from plaintiffs for work
performed under promulgated video game and other “non-negotiated” electronic
media agreements. For substantially the same reasons stated by the district court,
the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants is
AFFIRMED.
A. Background
The plaintiffs are musicians who are members of defendant Local 47, which
is a local affiliate of defendant AFM. As union members, plaintiffs pay work dues
based on their earnings as professional musicians. AFM governing documents
regulate the payment of work dues, and provide for the collection of work dues
based on earnings for musical services rendered pursuant to “AFM-negotiated”
agreements. In their complaint, plaintiffs allege that defendants improperly
collected work dues for musical services rendered pursuant to agreements that are
not “AFM-negotiated” agreements.
2
B. Standard of Review
“We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing
the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Au-Tomotive
Gold Inc. v. Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 603 F.3d 1133, 1135 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
Universal Health Servs., Inc. v. Thompson, 363 F.3d 1013, 1019 (9th Cir. 2004)).
The district court’s decision will be affirmed if the district court applied the correct
substantive law and there is no genuine issue of material fact when the evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Black Star Farms
LLC v. Oliver, 600 F.3d 1225, 1229-30 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting S.D. Myers, Inc. v.
City & County of San Francisco, 253 F.3d 461, 466 (9th Cir. 2001)).
C. Discussion
The district court’s opinion and order granting summary judgment in favor
of defendants reflects a thorough analysis of the law and the facts. After
conducting a de novo review, this Court concludes that the district court applied the
correct substantive law in the Ninth Circuit, which provides that a union’s
interpretation of its own rules, regulations and governing documents will not be
disturbed if that interpretation is not patently unreasonable, and if there is no
evidence of bad faith or special circumstances that justifies judicial interference.
3
When challenged by the plaintiffs before this lawsuit was filed regarding the
propriety of collecting work dues for musical services performed under
promulgated video game and other “non-negotiated” electronic media agreements,
the defendants considered plaintiffs’ concerns but concluded that the collection of
work dues for the agreements at issue was proper pursuant to the relevant
parameters established by the AFM regarding work dues. After an extensive
review of undisputed material facts, the district court concluded that the AFM’s
interpretation of its governing documents that regulate work dues was not patently
unreasonable and that plaintiffs failed to raise triable issues of fact regarding bad
faith or special circumstances. Upon examination of the facts in a light most
favorable to the plaintiffs, this Court concludes that there are no genuine issues of
material fact in dispute that support a different conclusion.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment in
favor of defendants for substantially the same reasons as stated by the district
court.
AFFIRMED.
4