Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 264 and 375 v. Nason's Delivery

August 31, 2011

INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, LOCAL NO. 264 AND 375 PLAINTIFF,
v.
NASON'S DELIVERY, INC., DEFENDANT.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: William M. Skretny Chief Judge United States District Court

DECISION AND ORDER

I. INTRODUCTION*fn1

Presently before this Court are motions for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order.*fn2 These motions are brought by Plaintiffs International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local No. 264 and 375's ("Unions" or "International Brotherhood") to enjoin Defendant Nason's Delivery, Inc. ("Nason's") from liquidating its assets and petitions this Court to confirm an arbitration award pursuant to the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 9.*fn3 Nason's counter-petitions to vacate the arbitration award on the grounds that the award was not definite and final, failed to give adequate notice, failed to comply with the arbitration agreement, exceeded the arbitral tribunal's authority, and was irrational. This Court heard oral argument on the Unions' motion on April 1, 2011 and reserved decision at that time. For the reasons stated below, the Unions' motion for a preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order is denied.

II. BACKGROUND

A. Facts

Plaintiffs are labor organizations based in Cheektowaga and Buffalo, NY. Each has a collective bargaining agreement ("CBA") with Defendant. Defendant is a private trucking company, located in Springville, NY, which was actively in business until September 24, 2010, after which it ceased all ordinary business operations on September 27, 2010.

Plaintiffs claim that on September 24, 2010, Defendant, without notice, ceased trucking operations and terminated all employees. In October 2010, Plaintiffs filed two grievances based on no notice of termination, no pay for vacation time, roving holidays, and 2009 and 2010 personal days. Plaintiffs sought all monies owed, with penalty fees, and accrued penalties. Plaintiffs submitted the grievances to the New York State Joint Area Committee ("NYSJAC") for a hearing and notified Defendant by October 12, 2010 of the hearing. Plaintiffs also requested pay records and documents listing vacation and roving days owed. Defendant did not turn over any records.

On November 6, 2010, counsel for the parties met to address and resolve the grievances, but failed to come to an agreement. A hearing was held before NYSJAC on December 21, 2010, and Defendant failed to appear. NYSJAC sustained both grievances. The grievances were submitted for resolution, with hearings before the Eastern Region Joint Area Committee ("ERJAC") on January 25, 2011. Defendant again failed to appear and the grievances were again sustained.

B. Procedural Background

On February 22, 2011, Plaintiffs commenced this action in New York State Supreme Court, Erie County, by filing a Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award and Order to Show Cause. In the petition, Plaintiffs allege entitlement to relief pursuant to a CBA under the Labor-Management Relations Act. In their underlying Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award, Plaintiffs seek (1) an order upholding and enforcing the grievance hearing decisions and (2) an order requiring disclosure of the documents for calculating monies owed. The court scheduled an Order to Show Cause appearance for March 8, 2011, to show why a temporary restraining order to freeze Defendant's assets and/or an Order of Attachment should not be granted against Defendant, or, why the proposed Petition to Confirm Arbitration Award should not be granted. Defendant then filed its Notice of Removal on March 7, 2011.

On March 14, 2011, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for an Expedited Hearing, which this Court granted in so far as providing the parties an early opportunity to make oral arguments on the motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On March 18, 2011 counsel for parties made oral arguments and this Court reserved judgment at that time.

III. DISCUSSION

A. Legal Standard

Plaintiffs move for a temporary restraining order and injunctive relief. "The standards for a TRO are the same as those governing the granting of preliminary injunctive relief." Roberts v. Atl. Recording Corp., 892 F. Supp. 83, 86 (S.D.N.Y. 1995); see also Schiavone Const. Co. v. New York City Transit Auth., 593 F.Supp. 1257, 1261 n.10 (S.D.N.Y. 1984) ("In view of the notice and opportunity to be heard which were afforded to the parties in this action, we consider it appropriate to analyze plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order under the standards governing the granting of preliminary injunctive relief.")

A preliminary injunction "is an extraordinary and drastic remedy which should not be routinely granted." Med. Soc'y of New York v. Toia, 560 F.2d 535, 538 (2d Cir. 1977); see also Borey v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, 934 F.2d 30, 33 (2d Cir. 1991). The standard for ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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