The opinion of the court was delivered by: Edelstein, District Judge.
This opinion emanates from the voluntary settlement of an
action commenced by the United States of America against, inter
alia, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("IBT" or "the
union") and the IBT's General Executive Board ("GEB"). The
settlement is embodied in the voluntary consent order entered
March 14, 1989 ("Consent Decree"). The goals of the Consent
Decree are to rid the IBT of the hideous influence of organized
crime and establish a culture of democracy within the union. The
long history of this case has been set forth in this Court's
numerous prior opinions. Accordingly, only those facts necessary
for resolving the instant matter shall be set forth.
In the instant motion, brought pursuant to this Court's
decision in United States v. IBT ("All Writs Order"),
728 F. Supp. 1032 (S.D.N.Y.), aff'd, 907 F.2d 277 (2d Cir. 1990),
the Government seeks to enjoin Daniel D. Slemko ("Slemko"), a
member of IBT Local 362 in Calgary, Alberta, Canada, from
pursuing a civil action entitled Slemko v. IBT et al., Action
No. 9901-12970/1999 (the "Slemko Action"), filed in the Court of
Queens Bench of Alberta,
Judicial District of Calgary, in any jurisdiction except this
On February 16, 1999, the Independent Review Board ("IRB")
referred an Investigative Report to the IBT proposing
disciplinary charges against Slemko. See Memorandum of Law in
Supp. of Government's Mot. for Injunctive Relief (September 14,
1999) ("Government's Mem.") at 5; Declaration of Andrew W.
Schilling ("Schilling Decl.") at Ex. C. Specifically, the IRB
recommended that the IBT charge Slemko with violating the rules
governing the 1996 IBT election ("Election Rules") and bringing
reproach upon the IBT by engaging in a scheme to collect, mark,
and mail ballots of other IBT members during the 1996 IBT rerun
election. See Government's Mem. at 5; Schilling Decl. at Ex. C.
In a letter dated February 22, 1999, the IBT notified the IRB
that the IBT adopted and filed the proposed charges against
Slemko. See Government's Mem. at 5-6; Schilling Decl. at Ex. D.
On April 19, 1999, the General Secretary-Treasurer of the IBT
referred the charges against Slemko to Teamsters Joint Council 90
in Calgary ("Joint Council 90") for a hearing. See Government's
Mem. at 6; Schilling Decl. at Ex. E.
On May 14, 1999, Slemko received notice from Joint Council 90
of the charges pending against him and of a hearing that would be
held on June 3, 1999. See Schilling Decl. at Ex. F (citing
Statement of Claim of Slemko in the Slemko Action). Joint Council
90 informed Slemko on June 2, 1999 that the hearing scheduled for
June 3, 1999 had been postponed and that they would notify him of
a new hearing date. See id. On July 14, 1999, Joint Council 90
advised Slemko that the hearing would be conducted on August 19,
1999. See id.
On August 13, 1999, six days prior to the rescheduled hearing,
Slemko commenced the Slemko Action, naming the IRB and Election
Officer Michael G. Cherkasky ("Election Officer") as defendants.
See Government's Mem. at 6; Schilling Decl. at Ex. F. Slemko
challenges the jurisdiction of Joint Council 90, the IBT, and the
IRB to pursue further disciplinary charges against him, alleging
that the defendants failed to conclude their disciplinary
proceedings within ninety days of the IRB's referral of the
proposed charges against Slemko, in contravention of the Consent
Decree and the approved Rules and Procedures for the Operation of
the IRB ("IRB Rules"). See Government's Mem. at 6; Schilling
Decl. at Ex. F.; see also Consent Decree at ¶ G(e); IRB Rules
at ¶ I(6). Inter alia, Slemko seeks monetary relief and
equitable relief in the form of an order enjoining defendants
from pursuing further disciplinary proceedings against him. See
Government's Mem. at 6; Schilling Decl. at Ex. F. On the same
day, August 13, 1999, Slemko also filed a motion in the Canadian
court requesting interlocutory injunctions preventing (1) Joint
Council 90 from proceeding with the disciplinary hearing against
him scheduled for August 19, 1999 and (2) the IBT and the IRB
from going forward with any disciplinary measures against him.
See Governments' Mem. at 7; Schilling Decl. at Ex. H. The
disciplinary hearing and the hearing on Slemko's motion were
adjourned. See Governments' Mem. at 7. On August 16, 1999, the
Canadian court ordered all defendants served outside the
jurisdiction of the Canadian court to file a "Statement of
Defence or a demand of notice" within forty days of service of
Slemko's complaint. See Government's Mem. at 7; Schilling Decl.
at Ex. G.
On August 31, 1999, Slemko's counsel advised the Government
that Slemko had not withdrawn his suit. See Schilling Decl. at
¶ 18. In a letter dated September 1, 1999, the Government
informed Slemko's attorney that because Slemko did not withdraw
the Slemko Action by August 30, 1999 and because there was no
indication that Slemko would discontinue his action in the
immediate future, the Government intended to seek equitable
relief from this Court. See Government's Mem. at 8; Schilling
Decl. at Ex. K. In that letter, the Government also asked that
Slemko's counsel advise the Government if Slemko's position
changed. See Government's Mem. at 8; Schilling Decl. at Ex. K.
To date, neither Slemko nor his attorney has contacted the
Government stating an intention to withdraw the Slemko Action.
Thus, because Slemko ignored the Government's repeated requests
to discontinue the Slemko Action voluntarily, on September 14,
1999 the Government filed a motion asking this Court to enjoin
Slemko from prosecuting the Slemko Action in any court or forum
other than this Court and directing Slemko to withdraw that
action immediately pursuant to the All Writs Order, the All
Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, and this Court's inherent equity
powers. Slemko never filed opposition papers with this Court, and
in fact, his attorney informed this Court on October 4, 1999, by
letter via facsimile, that Slemko "must let this application by
the United States of America go by default." Letter from G. Neil
McDermid to Judge David N. Edelstein of 4/4/99.
Slemko's filing of his action in Canada violates the All Writs
Order. Furthermore, this Court has jurisdiction over Slemko to
enforce the All Writs Order against him.
It is well settled that under the Consent Decree and the All
Writs Act, this Court may enjoin all IBT members and affiliates
from "filing or taking any legal action that challenges, impedes,
seeks review of or relief from, or seeks to prevent or delay any
act of the court officers appointed by this Court pursuant to the
Consent Order . . . in any court or forum in any jurisdiction
except this Court." All Writs Order, 728 F. Supp. at 1039 n. 5.
This Court has emphasized that all actions implicating the
Consent Decree must be brought in this Court because (1) multiple
suits would present a "significant risk of subjecting the Consent
Decree to inconsistent interpretations and the Court Officers to
inconsistent judgments" that would "encourage forum shopping,"
(2) "widespread litigation . . . would subvert the reform by
bogging the Court officers ...