Pitpit v. Teamsters Local No. 150 and Dale Wentz

Summary

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of California grants defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss Kelli Pitpit’s amended complaint against Teamsters Local No. 150 and Dale Wentz. The court concludes that the allegations do not plausibly show denial of rights accorded to other union members or actionable retaliation, and dismisses the case without leave to amend.

Holdings

1. The amended complaint failed to state a plausible claim because its allegations did not support an inference that defendants were liable.
2. Pitpit did not adequately allege that the Union denied her a right it had accorded to other members.
3. Pitpit did not allege the sort of retaliatory action that can support a claim under section 101(a).
4. Further amendment was denied because the court could conceive of no amendment that would permit a viable claim, and Pitpit identified no additional allegations or requested leave to amend.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the amended complaint stated a plausible claim for relief under the applicable pleading standard.
2. Whether the allegations showed that the Union denied Pitpit a right accorded to other members.
3. Whether the alleged conduct constituted retaliatory action supporting a claim under section 101(a).
4. Whether Pitpit should be granted further leave to amend.

Disposition

dismissed