Rodriguez et al v. District Council 16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
MARLON I. RODRIGUEZ, et al.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DISTRICT COUNCIL 16 OF THE
INTERNATIONAL UNION OF
PAINTERS AND ALLIED TRADES, AFL-
CIO, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 26-cv-01730-KAW
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART MOTION TO
DISMISS
Re: Dkt. No. 29
On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs Marlon I. Rodriguez, Nicholas B. King, Leonard
Quintana, Jr., Max B. Snelling, Matthew A. Harms, Danny O. Linares, Raymond A. Navarro,
Jesse G. Nunez, and Steven Antonio Rodrigues filed this case against Defendants District Council
16 of the International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (“District Council 16”) and
International Union of Painters and Allied Trades, AFL-CIO (“International Union”). Pending
before the Court is Defendants’ motion to dismiss. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, Dkt. No. 29.)
Having considered the parties’ filings, the relevant legal authorities, and the arguments
made at the October 1, 2026 hearing, the Court GRANTS IN PART AND DENIES IN PART
Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
I. BACKGROUND
Defendant District Council 16 charged Plaintiffs based on the same alleged conduct
relating to internal union strike-committee disbursements. (Compl. ¶ 6.) In May 2025, Defendant
District Council 16 convened a series of Trial Board disciplinary hearings concerning Plaintiffs.
(Compl. ¶ 7.) Plaintiffs assert that these Trial Board proceedings were deficient as evident based
on the Trial Board minutes, as Defendant District Council 16 did not present any witnesses or
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 1 of 12

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
documentary evidence, instead relying on unsworn summaries and correspondence. (Compl. ¶¶
8(a), (b), (d).) Plaintiffs further assert that no individualized findings were made as to any
Plaintiff, and that identical procedures and substantially identical penalties were imposed.
(Compl. ¶¶ 8(c), (e).) Plaintiffs were ultimately found guilty and subjected to fines, suspensions,
and mandatory requirements that adversely affected their membership rights and privileges.
(Compl. ¶¶ 9, 11.)
Plaintiffs timely appealed the decisions to Defendant International Union. (Compl. ¶ 12.)
Defendant International Union affirmed the disciplinary findings and penalties. (Compl. ¶ 13.)
On February 27, 2026, Plaintiffs filed this case, asserting a single cause of action for
violation of Title I of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (“LMRDA”), 29
U.S.C. § 411(a)(5). On July 31, 2026, Defendants filed this motion to dismiss. On August 13,
2026, Plaintiffs filed their opposition. (Pls.’ Opp’n, Dkt. No. 30.) On August 21, 2026,
Defendants filed their reply. (Defs.’ Reply, Dkt. No. 31.)
II. LEGAL STANDARD
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a party may file a motion to dismiss based
on the failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. A motion to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) tests the legal sufficiency of the claims asserted in the complaint. Navarro v. Block, 250
F.3d 729, 732 (9th Cir. 2001).
In considering such a motion, a court must “accept as true all of the factual allegations
contained in the complaint,” Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citation
omitted), and may dismiss the case or a claim “only where there is no cognizable legal theory” or
there is an absence of “sufficient factual matter to state a facially plausible claim to relief.”
Shroyer v. New Cingular Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (citing
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-78 (2009); Navarro, 250 F.3d at 732) (internal quotation
marks omitted). A claim is plausible on its face when a plaintiff “pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (citation omitted). In other words, the facts alleged must
demonstrate “more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 2 of 12

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
cause of action will not do.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007).
“Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action” and “conclusory statements” are
inadequate. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678; see also Epstein v. Wash. Energy Co., 83 F.3d 1136, 1140 (9th
Cir. 1996) (“[C]onclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to defeat
a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim.”). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a
probability requirement, but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted
unlawfully . . . When a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent with a defendant's
liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief.”
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557) (internal citations omitted).
Generally, if the court grants a motion to dismiss, it should grant leave to amend “unless it
determines that the pleading could not possibly be cured by the allegation of other facts.” Lopez v.
Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1127 (9th Cir. 2000) (citations omitted).
III. DISCUSSION
A. LMRDA § 101(a)(5)
Plaintiffs bring a single claim pursuant to LMRDA § 101(a)(5), which provides in relevant
part: “No member of any labor organization may be fined, suspended, expelled, or otherwise
disciplined . . . unless such member has been (A) served with written specific charges; (B) given a
reasonable time to prepare his defense; (C) afforded a full and fair hearing.” 29 U.S.C. §
411(a)(5). Here, Plaintiffs assert that they were not given a full and fair hearing.1 (See Compl. ¶
15; Pls.’ Opp’n at 3.)
While “[t]he full and fair hearing requirement has been compared to traditional concepts of
due process of law . . . a union disciplinary hearing need not incorporate the same protections
found in criminal proceedings.” Myers v. Affiliated Prop. Craftsmen, 667 F.2d 817, 820 (9th Cir.
1982). Rather, to satisfy the “full and fair hearing” requirement, the charging party must “provide
some evidence at the disciplinary hearing to support the charges made.” Int’l Bhd. of
1 In the complaint, Plaintiffs make the conclusory assertion that they “were not afforded a
meaningful opportunity to prepare or present individualized defenses,” but do not allege that they
were not given reasonable time to prepare their defense. (See Compl. ¶ 10.) Plaintiffs’ opposition
likewise focuses solely on the failure to provide a “full and fair hearing.” (See Pls.’ Opp’n at 3.)
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 3 of 12

4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
Boilermakers v. Hardeman, 401 U.S. 233, 246 (1971) (emphasis added). The “some evidence”
standard is not high. Georgopulous v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 942 F. Supp. 883, 895 (S.D.N.Y.
1996) (“The burden of proof regarding disciplinary charges against a union member is low--the
charging party must provide only some evidence at the disciplinary hearing to support the charges
made.”). For example, courts have found that a plaintiff’s admission of responsibility “alone may
meet the deferential ‘some evidence’ st[andard].” Nakanelua v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME,
Local 646 (“Nakanelua II”), No. 20-00442 JAO-KJM, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35 (D.
Haw. Jan. 19, 2022). Other courts have found that a plaintiff was afforded a full and fair hearing
where “witnesses testified at the trial and evidence was presented, just not all of the evidence [the
plaintiff] wanted to present.” Sw. Reg’l Council of Carpenters v. McCarron, No. CV 14-2762 PA
(JCx), 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 206967, at *29 (C.D. Cal. Dec. 23, 2014).
Here, both parties rely on the Trial Board Minutes attached to the operative complaint to
argue their position. (Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss at 7; Pls.’ Opp’n at 5.) Further, both parties appear
to argue that the Trial Board Minutes support dismissal of the complaint or denial of the motion to
dismiss in their entirety. (Id.) The Court, however, reviews each of the Trial Board Minutes to
determine whether “some evidence” was presented at each disciplinary proceeding.
i. Nicholas B. King
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff King state that a “statement from Chris Burnett that
[Plaintiff] King had signed” had been received. (Compl., Exh. A.) After Plaintiff King was asked
if he had received and understood the charges, Plaintiff King plead not guilty and passed out a
written statement that was read out loud. (Id.) Thereafter, the Trial Board deliberated and found
Plaintiff King guilty of 15 violations. (Id.)
Plaintiffs argue that the Trial Board Meetings do not show that any witness testimony,
investigative interview, documentary evidence, or other evidence was presented against Plaintiff
King. (Pls.’ Opp’n at 5.) The Court agrees. While the Court does not suggest that certain types
of evidence are required, e.g., sworn witness testimony, documentary evidence, etc. -- some
evidence is still required. While the “some evidence” standard is low, there is nothing in the
operative complaint or the Trial Board Meetings to suggest that any evidence was presented that
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 4 of 12

5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
would support Plaintiff King’s conviction. See Hardeman, 401 U.S. at 246 (“We have repeatedly
held that convictions on charges unsupported by any evidence is a denial of due process.”).
In reply, Defendants argue that each Plaintiff, including Plaintiff King, was asked if they
knew and understood the charges against them, at which point they could have challenged the
allegation that they had approved the disbursement that was at issue. (Defs.’ Reply at 3.)
Defendants thus appear to assume that Plaintiffs’ failure to affirmatively deny the disbursement
constitutes “some evidence” of guilt. (Id.) Defendants, however, provide no authority in support
of such a proposition, despite acknowledging at the hearing that this would change the burden of
proof such that Plaintiff would be required to prove innocence. It is, however, Defendants’ burden
of proof to demonstrate guilt. See Nakanelua v. United Pub. Workers, AFSCME, Local 646
(“Nakanelua I”), No. 20-00442 JAO-KJM, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 25345, at *39 (D. Haw. Feb.
10, 2021) (“The Court agrees that if Plaintiffs bore the burden of proof, Plaintiffs would have been
denied a full and fair hearing because the burden of proof -- while not very high -- rests with the
union.”).
Alternatively, Defendants contend that for each hearing, the Trial Board knew and had
access to the charges against each Plaintiff and the investigative findings for each Plaintiff.
(Defs.’ Reply at 3.) The Court, however, is constrained by the operative complaint and its
attachments at the pleading stage. There is nothing in the pleadings that suggests that the
investigative findings for each Plaintiff constituted “some evidence” of guilt, nor do the operative
complaint or Trial Board Minutes suggest that those investigative findings were presented at
Plaintiff King’s disciplinary hearing. As to the argument that the charges themselves constitute
“some evidence,” Defendants admitted at the hearing that they had no authority in support of this
remarkable proposition, which would effectively allow an individual to be found guilty on the
charges presented without the production of any evidence whatsoever.
Finally, Defendants rely on an unpublished Ninth Circuit case to argue that an LMRDA
claim fails when there are undisputed facts supporting the charge. (Defs.’ Reply at 5.) It is not
apparent the Ninth Circuit meant to do away with the requirement that “some evidence” be
presented at the hearing; indeed, the Ninth Circuit acknowledged that Hardeman requires that
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 5 of 12

6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
“[t]he charging party must provide some evidence at the disciplinary hearing to support the
charges made.” Osburn v. Int’l All. of Theatrical Stage Emps., 752 F. App’x 385, 388 (9th Cir.
2018). The Court further notes that unlike the present motion, the Ninth Circuit was considering
the grant of a summary judgment motion, where evidence outside of the pleadings could be
considered. See id.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff King has adequately alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing at the pleading stage.
ii. Leonard Quintana
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Quintana state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Quintana pled not guilty, Plaintiff Quintana admitted he had been told that the other
glaziers’ memberships had not approved their strike committee payments or the increased strike
duty payments to the membership, and that “[m]aybe they should have gotten the payments
approved beforehand and that might be on him but they are trying to change things.” (Compl.,
Exh. B at 1.) Plaintiff Quintana further “stated that all of this is on him and that he takes the
blame for every member that was brought up on charges[.]” (Id.) The Trial Board then
deliberated and found Plaintiff Quintana guilty of 15 violations. (Id. at 2.)
Defendants correctly point out that Plaintiff Quintana effectively admitted that he made
payments that he should have gotten approved beforehand. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 7.) While the Court
does not suggest that Plaintiff Quintana admitted that the payments were improper, his
acknowledgment that the payments were made without authorization satisfies the “some evidence”
standard. See Nakanelua II, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35. At the hearing, Plaintiff
Quintana argued that they did comply with the rules and protocol based on prior strikes, but
whether the payments actually were improper is a separate matter as to whether the “some
evidence” standard -- which is a very low standard -- was satisfied.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Quintana has not sufficiently alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing. Further, because the Trial Board Minutes
attached and incorporated into the operative complaint effectively demonstrate that the “some
evidence” standard was met, his claim must be dismissed with prejudice.
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 6 of 12

7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
The Court notes that Defendants observe that Plaintiff Quintana’s statement effectively
implicated every Plaintiff in this case. (Defs.’ Opp’n at 7.) To the extent Defendants suggest that
his statement constitutes “some evidence” as to every Plaintiff, however, there would still need to
be some showing that Plaintiff Quintana’s statement was then presented at the disciplinary
proceeding of all other Plaintiffs. See Hardeman, 401 U.S. at 246 (explaining that the charging
party must “provide some evidence at the disciplinary hearing”) (emphasis added). There is
nothing in the operative complaint or Trial Board Minutes, however, to suggest that Plaintiff
Quintana’s statement was presented at every disciplinary proceeding at issue in this case.
iii. Marlon Rodriguez
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Rodriguez state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Rodriguez plead not guilty, Plaintiff Rodriguez submitted a statement and an e-mail he
had sent to Trevor Long when he had received a notice to repay the unauthorized funds. (Compl.,
Exh. C.) Plaintiff Rodriguez then stated that “this happened almost a year ago and everyone just
wants to move on” before reading a written letter which was submitted. (Id.) The Trial Board
then deliberated and found Plaintiff Rodriguez guilty of 14 violations. (Id.)
At the hearing, Plaintiff Rodriguez explained that that when stating “this happened almost
a year ago,” “this” referred not to the payments, but to the friction between the union and the local.
Plaintiff Rodriguez further stated that he never acknowledged that the payments were made.
Defendants’ suggestion that by virtue of finding him guilty, the Trial Board must have interpreted
“this” as referring to the payments is not well-taken; there is nothing in the record to support such
a bald assertion.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Rodriguez has adequately alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing at the pleading stage.
iv. Steve Rodrigues
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Rodrigues state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Rodrigues plead not guilty, Plaintiff Rodrigues explained that “there was some confusion
with the strike committee not getting the payments approved by the membership, but it was
approved afterwards in the Jan 2025 meeting, and he feels that this is a waste of time and
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 7 of 12

8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
resources.” (Compl., Exh. D.) The Trial Board then deliberated and found Plaintiff Rodrigues
guilty of 11 violations. (Id.)
Again, Plaintiff Rodrigues effectively admitted that the payments were made and that they
were not authorized at the time they were made. This admission satisfies the “some evidence”
standard. See Nakanelua II, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Rodrigues has not sufficiently alleged a
LMRDA violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing, such that his claim must be
dismissed with prejudice.
v. Max Snelling
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Snelling state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Snelling pled not guilty, Plaintiff Snelling “stated that everything was good because
Roberts Rules of Order allowed them to do what they did.” (Compl., Exh. E.) The Trial Board
then deliberated and found Plaintiff Snelling guilty of 12 violations. (Id.)
As above, Plaintiff Snelling effectively admitted to the conduct charged. This admission
satisfies the “some evidence” standard. See Nakanelua II, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35.
While Plaintiff Snelling argued at the hearing that the minutes did not include the specific wording
of what was stated, there is no requirement that an exact transcript be provided. A summary of
what was stated is sufficient, even if not grammatically precise.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Snelling has not sufficiently alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing, such that his claim must be dismissed with
prejudice.
vi. Raymond Navarro
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Navarro state that after the charges were read,
Plaintiff Navarro said he was part of a letter submitted by Chris Burnett before pleading not guilty.
(Compl., Exh. F.) Plaintiff Navarro then stated he wished to make no other statement. (Id.) The
Trial Board then deliberated and found Plaintiff Navarro guilty of 12 violations. (Id.)
As with Plaintiff King, the Court finds that based on the operative complaint and
attachments, there is nothing to suggest that the “some evidence” standard was met. For example,
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 8 of 12

9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
there is nothing in the complaint or the Trial Board Minutes that explain what was stated in the
Chris Burnett letter. At the hearing, Defendants complained that an individual’s silence should
not be able to prevent the Trial Board from finding that individual guilty. This is beside the point;
even if an individual declines to make a statement, the Trial Board still has an independent
obligation to present “some evidence” that supports conviction. Based on the pleadings and the
Trial Board minutes, however, there is no showing that “some evidence” was in fact presented,
whether by the Trial Board or an admission by a plaintiff.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Navarro has adequately alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing at the pleading stage.
vii. Danny Linares
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Linares state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Linares pled not guilty, Plaintiff Linares referred the Trial Board to the Chris Burnett
letter. (Compl., Exh. G.) Plaintiff Linares then stated that “the main issue was not getting the
membership to authorize payments to the strike committee but th[ey] did that 7 months later in the
January meeting after the fact and Robert’s Rules of Order does not give a timeline to amend the
meeting minutes.” (Id.) The Trial Board then deliberated and found Plaintiff Linares guilty of 13
violations. (Id.)
Like Plaintiffs Rodrigues and Snelling, Plaintiff Linares effectively admitted that payments
were made without authority, even though authority was obtained later. This admission satisfies
the “some evidence” standard. See Nakanelua II, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Linares has not sufficiently alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing, such that his claim must be dismissed with
prejudice.
viii. Jesse Nunez
The Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Nunez state that after the charges were read and
Plaintiff Nunez pled not guilty, Plaintiff Nunez asked what information the Trial Board had about
what happened. (Compl., Exh. H.) Interview correspondence was then read, which Plaintiff
Nunez disputed as not being recorded properly. (Compl., Exh. H.) Plaintiff Nunez’s
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 9 of 12

10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
representative, Chris Burnett, then stated that “they are both at a loss as to why they are here due
to the fact that at the January LU 718 membership meeting the members approved the payments
that took [sic] 7 months prior and referenced Roberts Rules of Order[.]” (Compl., Exh. H.) The
Trial Board then deliberated and found Plaintiff Nunez guilty of 12 violations. (Id.)
In short, Plaintiff Nunez’s own representative admitted that the payments were made
without authority, even though authority was obtained later. This admission satisfies the “some
evidence” standard. See Nakanelua II, 2022 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9207, at *35.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Nunez has not sufficiently alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing, such that his claim must be dismissed with
prejudice.
ix. Matt Harms
Finally, the Trial Board Minutes for Plaintiff Harms states that after the charges were read
and Plaintiff Harms pled not guilty, Plaintiff Harms asked that every charge be explained.
(Compl., Exh. I.) The Trial Board then explained that every charged pertained to an interview
done with James Hewett and Carlos Martinez before reading notes from the interview. (Id.)
Plaintiff Harms asserted that the notes did not sound like anything he recalled before providing the
Trial Board with a written statement and asking that it be read out loud. (Id.) The Trial Board
then deliberated and found Plaintiff Harms guilty of 12 violations. (Id.)
As with Plaintiffs King and Navarro, the Court finds that based on the operative complaint
and attachments, there is nothing to suggest that the “some evidence” standard was met. While it
is apparent that the interview notes were read, it is unknown from the pleadings what was in the
interview notes. Although Defendants suggested at the hearing that the interview notes are
evidence, Plaintiff Harms correctly pointed out that “some evidence of innocence is not some
evidence of guilt.” In other words, without knowing what was in the interview notes, the Court
cannot find at this stage that there was any evidence presented in support of Plaintiff Harms’s
conviction.
Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiff Harms has adequately alleged a LMRDA
violation based on the lack of a full and fair hearing at the pleading stage.
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 10 of 12

11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
In summary, the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the claims of Plaintiffs Quintana,
Rodrigues, Snelling, Linares, and Nunez. As explained above, the Trial Board Minutes attached
to and incorporated into the operative complaint effectively demonstrate that “some evidence” was
presented as to these individuals, such that amendment is futile. Thus, only the claims of Plaintiffs
King, Rodriguez, Navarro, and Harms remain.
B. Liability of International Union
Next, Defendants argue that Defendant International Union should be dismissed because
its affirmation of the Trial Board’s decisions are insufficient to create liability. (Defs.’ Mot. to
Dismiss at 9.) In Moore v. Local Union 569 of International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers,
the Ninth Circuit found that an international union could not be held liable for affirming the local
affiliate’s actions “absent a showing of bad faith or fraud.” 989 F.2d 1534, 1542 (9th Cir. 1993).
Alternatively, an international union could “incur liability on a theory of ratification only if it
affirmed the Local’s actions with full knowledge . . . of its unlawful character.” Id. at 1543.
Here, Plaintiffs only allege that they appealed the Trial Board’s decisions to the Defendant
International Union, which then “affirmed the disciplinary findings and penalties without
correcting the procedural deficiencies alleged herein.” (Compl. ¶ 13.) This conclusory allegation
is insufficient; at the pleading stage, Plaintiffs must allege facts showing that Defendant
International Union acted in bad faith or with full knowledge of the unlawful character of the
disciplinary proceedings. See Moore, 989 F.2d at 1542, 1543. Plaintiffs’ argument in their
opposition that this is a factual question is insufficient to satisfy this pleading requirement.
Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES without prejudice the claims against Defendant
International Union. The Court will allow the remaining Plaintiffs to amend to include facts that
Defendant International Union acted in bad faith or with full knowledge of the unlawful character
of the disciplinary proceedings. The Court, however, warns that the letter presented by Plaintiffs
at the hearing does not appear to satisfy this requirement; the fact that Defendant International
Union stated that it would be asking for all facts from the Trial Board does not, without more,
suggest bad faith or knowledge of an unlawful character in affirming the disciplinary proceedings.
If Plaintiffs cannot, in good faith, amend this claim to allege a cognizable claim, they should not
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 11 of 12

12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
amend it and proceed with their remaining claims.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the reasons stated above, the Court GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART
Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss the claims
brought by Plaintiffs Quintana, Rodrigues, Snelling, Linares, and Nunez with prejudice. Further,
the Court GRANTS Defendants’ motion to dismiss Defendant International Union without
prejudice. Thus, the only remaining claims are those of Plaintiffs King, Rodriguez, Navarro, and
Harms as to Defendant District Council 16.
Plaintiffs King, Rodriguez, Navarro, and Harms may file an amended complaint within 30
days of the date of this order; any amendments should be limited to the liability of Defendant
International Union. No new claims may be added.
The Court SETS a case management conference for January 19, 2027 at 1:30 p.m.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 14, 2026
__________________________________
KANDIS A. WESTMORE
United States Magistrate Judge
Case 4:26-cv-01730-KAW Document 37 Filed 10/14/26 Page 12 of 12