Bad standing I

Many of you have heard about the pending federal case. The pending case is against TWU International not against TWU Local 100. However as many of you are aware what ails TWU International we in the TWU Local 100 will feel the pain due to the fact that all of the actors in this case came out of TWU Local 100. The case was brought forward by the United States Department of Labor against TWU International. Department of Labor is asking the United States District Court - Southern District of New York to declare the September 16, 2009 election of three union officers who were in bad standing conducted by the TWU International as void, due to the fact that it violated the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 LMRDA. Thus directing the TWU to conduct a new election of those three offices under the supervision of the Department of Labor.

Here are the details: 

Case number: 1:10-cv-05632

US District Judge: Barbara S. Jones, presiding

US Magistrate Judge: Theodore H. Katz, referral

Plaintiff: Hilda L. Solis 

Secretary, (in her official capacity) Department of Labor (DOL)

Defendant: Transport Workers Union of America (TWU)

Date filed: 07/23/2010

Issue: Federal question

Lawyer for the plaintiff: Alicia Marie Simmons - Phone (212) 637-2697

Lawyers for the defendant: Evan Hudson-Plush - Phone (212) 563-4100

Bruce Steven Levine - Phone (212) 356-0230

The complaint was filed by the Department of Labor on July 23, 2010 and on August 11, 2010 the case was referred to the Magistrate Judge - on the same day the plaintiff (DOL) filed an affidavit that they had served the complaint to the defendant (TWU).

On September 30, 2010 there were six events all by the defendant (TWU) lawyers. They were as follows: first, the lawyers filed their notice of appearance, second they filed a corporate disclosure statement stating that (TWU) is not a public traded company and no corporation holds any of its stock, third they made a motion to dismiss (which was terminated on August 12, 2011), fourth they submitted a memorandum (basis) of law in support of their motion to dismiss, fifth they filed a declaration in support of the motion, and sixth a certificate of service from the above was served to the plaintiff (DOL).

Many have observed that the defendant (TWU) lawyers put all their eggs in one basket in the hope of knocking this case down. That tactic appears to have not worked - others have opined that if the traditional strategy was used it may have produced the desired result. For example when the complaint was filled there should have been an answer.

The plaintiff (DOL) lawyers requested an extension of time to file its opposition to the defendant (TWU) lawyers motion to dismiss on October 8, 2010 in which the US Judge granted their request on October 9, 2010. The plaintiff (DOL) lawyers had two events, on October 28, 2010 - first they responded with an opposition to the motion to dismiss, and second they submitted a signed declaration. On November 11, 2010 the defendant (TWU) lawyer filed a reply memorandum of law in support of their earlier motion to dismiss.

On August 12, 2011 the US Judge denied the defendant a motion to dismiss - here we learn there are possibly over thirty (30) officers that were in bad standing. Then on September 6, 2011 the defendant (TWU) lawyer requested an extension of time to file answer. The US Judge approved that with a date for answer that was on September 26, 2011.

It is not clear till now why there was no answer from the defendant (TWU) lawyers which is past due by 21 days, possibly the plaintiff may win.