 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Hess v. San Bernardino Professional Firefighters Union11/6/2002
Plaintiff Darrell Hess sued his union, San Bernardino Professional Firefighters Union, Local 891 (Union) for breach of the duty of fair representation. The trial court granted the Union's motion for judgment on the pleadings, on grounds that the action was barred by a compromise and release agreement signed in Mr. Hess's workers' compensation action against the City of San Bernardino (City). Mr. Hess appeals.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
A defendant's motion for judgment on the pleadings, like a general demurrer, tests the sufficiency of plaintiff's complaint to state a cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., ยง 438, subd. (c)(1)(B)(ii). ) "We ordinarily examine only the face of the pleadings, together with matters subject to judicial notice, to determine whether such facts are sufficient to constitute a cause of action. [Citation.]" (O'Neil v. General Security Corp. (1992) 4 Cal.App.4th 587, 594, fn. 1.) However, for reasons discussed below, we do not apply this standard of review in this case.
THE COMPLAINT
Plaintiff purports to allege a single cause of action, for breach of the duty of fair representation, against his Union. The complaint therefore alleges that Mr. Hess was a firefighter employed by the City as a captain in its fire department, that he was a member of the Union, and that the Union had a duty of fair representation which required it to represent him in good faith in grievance proceedings under a collective bargaining agreement and/or a memorandum of understanding. He further alleges breach of that duty and resulting damages.
The complaint also alleges, in detail, the facts underlying the grievance. Mr. Hess alleges that, beginning on November 30, 1997, senior management of the fire department retaliated against him because he had reported that another captain had used racial epithets against members of his fire crew. Because of the retaliation, he was placed on administrative leave and eventually forced to take a disability retirement. In the Fall of 1998, he pursued an informal grievance procedure, followed by the filing of a formal grievance on November 7, 1998. After submitting the formal grievance, plaintiff relieved a union representative from representing him and sought a new union representative. On December 11, 1998, the union's legal counsel recommended that the Union cease to provide representation to plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the Union breached its duty to provide him with a fair and impartial representation concerning his grievances. Specifically, he alleges that " he decision of Defendant union and its officers not to process or pursue the grievances for Plaintiff was not made in good faith or in the exercise of discretion, but on the contrary was arbitrary, discriminatory action on their part motivated by personal animosity toward Plaintiff."
The complaint also alleges that, as a result of the failure to represent plaintiff, he was forced to settle all his claims against the City, and he suffered emotional distress. Monetary damages were sought.
THE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS
Plaintiff's complaint survived a demurrer and a summary judgment motion and the case was set for trial on August 13, 2001. On August 10, 2001, defendant filed a motion to have the trial court decide legal issues prior to proceeding with a factual trial. Defendant raised eight legal issues, mostly concerning waiver and estoppel.
On August 13, 2001, the case came on for trial. The court discussed the issues raised by defendant and the factual claims underlying those issues. The trial court focused on the other actions which plaintiff had filed against the City and asked the parties
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 California Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|