Labor & Employment Law Daily Wrap Up, LABOR—UNIONS, UNION MEMBERS—N.D. Cal.: Transit dispatcher failed to adequately allege claims related to purported union grievance mishandling, (Jul 15, 2026)

By Steven D. Cole, J.D.

A plethora of procedural and drafting errors rendered the third amended complaint subject to dismissal as to both the local union and the employer.

A transit dispatcher/operator failed to sufficiently state claims in his fourth attempt to move forward with an action challenging his termination, a federal district court in California concluded, dismissing his third amended complaint. The dispatcher filed suit against his employer, Transdev Services, Inc., and Teamsters Local 853, alleging claims stemming from his purported wrongful termination and the Union’s alleged mishandling of his grievances. The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss on multiple grounds, including the amended complaint’s failure to connect factual allegations with specific causes of action, and the applicable statutes of limitations (Miles v. Transdev North America, Inc., No. 25-cv-03924-JST (N.D. Cal. July 13, 2026)).

Background. The dispatcher was employed by Transdev, a contractor to the San Francisco Municipal Transit Agency. His employment was subject to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with Local 853. According to the third amended complaint (TAC), the dispatcher was fired on March 25, 2024, in retaliation for filing a grievance. On April 10, 2024, a union representative informed the dispatcher that his grievance would be taken to arbitration, but it was later closed without his knowledge. Local 853 also entered into a settlement with Transdev and reinstated the dispatcher’s position without his knowledge or consent, leading to his second termination on May 31, 2024, for job abandonment. Finally, he alleged that an attorney for Transdev filed a fraudulent UCC Financing Statement with the California Secretary of State in which she improperly named the dispatcher as debtor in order to interfere with the ongoing litigation.

The dispatcher filed his original complaint in San Francisco Superior Court on April 2, 2025. Transdev removed the case to federal district court on May 5, 2025. The dispatcher’s TAC, which he filed on September 17, 2025, asserted claims for First Amendment retaliation, violation of procedural due process, wrongful termination in violation of public policy, breach of the CBA, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of the duty of fair representation, and abuse of process/fraudulent filing of a financing statement under the California Commercial Code. Both Transdev and Local 853 filed motions to dismiss.

Dismissal of claims against Local 853. The district court granted Local 853’s motion first on the ground of insufficient service of process. The Dispatcher did not obtain a summons from the Clerk’s Office after naming Local 853 as a defendant for the first time in the Second Amended Complaint, and he mailed Local 853 the TAC without a summons. The claim asserting breach of the duty of fair representation, which is subject to a six-month statute of limitations, also required dismissal because it was filed more than 10 months after the dispatcher’s termination. (At the time of termination, the dispatcher had actual knowledge of the elements of this claim, thereby precluding his argument that the limitations period should have been tolled.) The remaining claims against Local 853 were subject to dismissal as well because they were subsumed into the breach of the duty of fair representation claim.

Dismissal of claims against Transdev. The TAC’s first five claims, asserted against Transdev, were deficient under Rule 8(a)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), the court explained, which requires a complaint to contain, at the least, “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Instead, the body of TAC described “a litany of unconnected events, followed by a bare-bones list of causes of action with little or no supporting detail.”

The seventh claim, asserting “fraudulent filing of financing statement/abuse of process,” warranted dismissal on two independent grounds. First, it was added to the TAC without leave of court. Second, it failed to state a claim under FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) because, aside from conclusory statements, the TAC contained no factual allegations suggesting that Transdev engaged in fraudulent or abusive conduct in filing the UCC statement.

Remand petition. The dispatcher also filed a “Jurisdictional Strike and Petition for Immediate Remand.” This document was not filed as a noticed motion pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-2 and was, therefore, denied on that ground. The court also denied the motion on the merits because it was filed more than seven months after removal, not “within 30 days,” as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

The case is No. 25-cv-03924-JST.

Attorneys: Reginald Miles, pro se. Cheryl Lynn Johnson-Hartwell (Burke, Williams and Sorensen) for Transdev North America, Inc. and Transdev Services, Inc. Craig L. Schechter (Beeson, Tayer and Bodine) for Teamsters Local 853.

Companies: Transdev North America, Inc.; Transdev Services, Inc.; Teamsters Local 853

Cases: Labor UnionsMembers Procedure Discharge CaliforniaNews