International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 428, a Labor Organization, Plaintiff,
Associated General Contractors of America, Inc., Arizona Chapter; Ames Construction, Inc.; Bragg Companies dba Bragg Crane Service; Crane Rental Service, Inc.; HKB, Inc. dba Southwest Industrial Rigging; Klondyke Construction, LLC; Kiewit Western Co.; Marco Crane Rigging Co.; Pulice Construction Inc.; Royden Construction Co., Defendants.
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Previously, all Defendants moved to dismiss (Docs. 25 and 29). Thereafter, nine Defendants settled with Plaintiff; thereby mooting the motion at Doc. 25. Defendant Klondyke Construction did not settle; therefore its motion (Doc. 29) remains pending. At oral argument on July 24, 2013, Klondyke's counsel incorporated the arguments made in the other Defendants' motion as his own (in addition to the arguments made in Doc. 29). Therefore, the Court will consider the substance of both motions, below, even though Doc. 25 is now moot. Both motions seek dismissal on statute of limitations grounds.
Plaintiff and Defendants have been party to a series of collective bargaining agreements for the period June 16, 2008 through May 31, 2011 (collectively referred to as the "AGC Agreement"). (Plaintiff's Complaint at ¶ 13). The AGC Agreement provided for wage and benefit increases to go into effect on June 1, 2009 and June 1, 2010. ( Id. at ¶ 15). In May and June of 2009, however, Defendants informed Plaintiff that they would not pay the wage and benefit increases scheduled for June 1, 2009. ( Id. at ¶ 16, 17). On June 18, 2009, Plaintiff filed a grievance against Defendants asserting that they had violated the AGC Agreement. ( Id. at ¶ 19).
The dispute between Plaintiff and Defendants went to arbitration in accordance with the AGC Agreement. ( Id. at ¶ 20). On July 9, 2010, the arbitrator issued his Award and his Opinion. ( Id. at ¶ 23). Having found in favor of Plaintiff, the arbitrator awarded Plaintiff the retroactive payment of the wage and benefit increases scheduled for June 1, 2009 and June 1, 2010. ( Id. at ¶ 23).
On September 28, 2012, Plaintiff filed its Complaint seeking judicial enforcement of the arbitration award. Defendant Klondyke now moves to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff filed its Complaint outside the applicable statute of limitations.
A. Statute of Limitations Governing Section 301
This Court has jurisdiction to hear this case because "Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act [LMRA] authorizes the district courts to enforce or vacate an arbitration award entered pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement." Sheet Metal Workers International Association Local Union No. 359 v. Madison Industries, Inc. of Ariz., 84 F.3d 1186, 1190 (9th Cir. 1996). "There is no federal statute of limitations directly applicable to § 301. In such situations, courts usually borrow the most closely analogous statute of limitations under state law." Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local Union 150 v. Air Systems Engineering, Inc., 831 F.2d 1509, 1511 (9th Cir. 1987) (citing DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 158 (1983)).
B. The Parties' Positions
Plaintiff and Defendant argue different statutes of limitations govern this case. Specifically, Defendant suggests that the "most closely analogous" statute under Arizona law is A.R.S. § 12-541(3), which provides for a one-year statute of limitations in actions for "breach of an oral or written employment contract." Defendant further suggests that the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) one-year statute of limitations adds support to its conclusion that a one-year period is appropriate here. Conversely, Plaintiff argues that the Arizona Uniform Arbitration Act (AUAA) provides the applicable statute of limitations in this case.
C. Defendant's Arguments
Defendant argues that the Court should apply a one-year statute of limitations here because A.R.S. § 12-541(3) and the FAA contain one-year statutes of limitations. Defendant has not cited any case in which A.R.S. § 12-541(3) has been applied to an action for enforcement of an arbitration award, nor has the Court found any such case. Defendant bolsters its argument in favor of a one-year statute of limitations by discussing the FAA's one-year statute of limitations, arguing that it should guide this Court's decision.
The Court is not persuaded by Defendant's reliance on the FAA's one-year statute of limitations as evidence that A.R.S. § 12-541(3) is the most closely analogous statute of limitations. In a Ninth Circuit case, the Court of Appeals stated, "Public policy favors enforcement of arbitration awards because they promote the quick and final resolution of labor disputes." Air Systems Engineering, 831 F.2d at 1512. Thus, the Court's public policy discussion would favor a longer statute of limitations. The Court also listed examples of various statutes of limitations for the confirmation of arbitration awards, including both the FAA's one-year limit and the absence of a limit under Arizona law. Id. at 1512 n. 5. Any guidance provided by the Court of ...