Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

TUSINO v. INTERNATIONAL BHD. OF TEAMSTERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK


June 21, 1996

ERNEST TUSINO, Plaintiff, against INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, and RONALD CAREY, individually and in his capacity as General President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Defendants.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: EDELSTEIN

MEMORANDUM & ORDER

 EDELSTEIN, District Judge:

 In an Opinion and Order dated June 6, 1996, this Court denied plaintiff Ernest Tusino's ("Tusino" or "plaintiff") Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 motion for a preliminary injunction. See Tusino v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, et al., 1996 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7782, 96 Civ. 2774, 1996 WL 306750 (S.D.N.Y. June 6, 1996). For the purposes of the instant Memorandum and Order, familiarity with the facts of this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order is assumed.

 Although this Court denied plaintiff's motion on the ground that he had failed to satisfy the legal standard for obtaining a preliminary injunction, this Court further declined "to exercise its discretion to grant an injunction because plaintiff has not abided by the procedures that govern protests in the 1995-96 [International Brotherhood of Teamsters International Union Delegate and Officer Election]." Id. at *13. This Court noted that "Tusino failed to bring his request for injunctive relief as an appeal from a Decision of the Election Appeals Master." Id. at *14. This Court stated that "Tusino's motion for a preliminary injunction should be denied in order to ensure that the 1995-96 IBT Election process continues in an orderly fashion." Id. This Court noted that "to date, the Election Officer has received 1,096 election protests, and the Election Appeals Master has decided 195 appeals." Id. This Court expressed concern that if an aggrieved party to the 1995-96 IBT Elections were free to disregard the protest-procedures established by this Court, then "each of these protests and appeals could form the basis of an application for injunctive relief that would be brought before this Court." Id. This Court found that "this potential deluge of applications would create a grave threat that the 1995-96 IBT Elections would become bogged down in a quagmire of litigation that would hinder the Consent Decree's goal of ensuring fair, open, and honest IBT elections." Id. Accordingly, this Court denied plaintiff's motion.

 By letter dated June 18, 1996, Election Officer Barbara Zack Quindel ("the Election Officer") has informed the Court that the references to 1,096 election protests in this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order are inaccurate. (Letter from Barbara Zack Quindel, Election Officer to the Honorable David N. Edelstein, United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York (June 18, 1996) (on file with the Clerk of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York).) The Election Officer states that "this information was conveyed to the Court by a staff member in my office prior to my review of protest statistics that were being compiled." Id. She further states that "having reviewed those protest statistics, I want to advise the Court that as of the date of the Order, June 6, 1996, the Election Officer had, in fact, received 955 protests." Id. The Election Officer then apologized "for this error in communication." Id.

 Because this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order contains inaccurate information, it is appropriate to reconsider, sua sponte, plaintiff's Rule 65 motion. After reconsidering plaintiff's motion in light of the new information provided by the Election Officer, this Court holds that plaintiff's Rule 65 motion should be denied for all of the reasons stated in this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order. Although that opinion incorrectly cites 1,096 election protests, when the accurate number is 995, the concerns that this Court expressed in the June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order remain unchanged. If an aggrieved party to the 1995-96 IBT Elections were free to disregard the procedures that this Court established for the disposition of election protests, then each of the 995 protests received by the Election Officer and the 195 appeals decided by the Election Appeals Master could form the basis for a motion for a preliminary injunction. Although this number of potential applications is less than the number cited in this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order, this number, nevertheless, creates the threat of a potential deluge of litigation. To avoid this problem, this Court will not exercise its discretion to grant a motion for a preliminary injunction to a party that has failed to adhere to the rules that this Court established for bringing election protests.

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT upon reconsideration of plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, plaintiff's Rule 65 motion is DENIED WITH PREJUDICE.

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT this Court's June 6, 1996, Opinion and Order is MODIFIED to reflect the accurate number of election protests received by the Election Officer--995 protests.

 SO ORDERED.

 DATED: New York, New York

 June 21, 1996

 David N. Edelstein

 U.S.D.J.

19960621

© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.