Free Order on Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :05-cv—00047-GIVIS Document 47 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
BRIAN K. REINBOLD, )
Plaintiff, )
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-342 (GMS)
) Civil Action No. 05-47 (GMS)
NALC LOCAL 1977, et al. )
Defendants. )
ORDER
WHEREAS, on April 28, 2004 Brian K. Reinbold ("Reinbold") filed a lawsuit against the
National Association of Letter Carriers ("NALC") Branch 1977 and NALC Branch 191 (the "NALC
defendants") in the Court of Common Pleas for the State of Delaware, New Castle County;
WHEREAS, the complaint alleges that, between May 2001 and April 2004, the NALC
defendants did not act in good faith in representing Reinbold under his collective bargaining
agreement (the "CBA") (D.I. 1)';
WHEREAS, the NALC defendants subsequently removed the lawsuit to this court on May
27, 2004;
WHEREAS, on January 28, 2005, Reinbold filed a similar action against the United States
Postal Service (the "USPS") and the NALC Branch 191, alleging that, between January 1, 2003 and
December 31, 2004, the defendants engaged in unfair labor practices against him and failed to
represent him per the CBA (05-47 D.I. 1);
' For convenience, the court will refer to docket item numbers from the 04-342 (GMS)
case, unless otherwise noted.

Case 1:05-cv—00047-G|\/IS Document 47 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 2 of 3
WHEREAS, on November 30, 2005, the USPS filed a motion for summaryjudgment (D.I.
25);
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2006, the court issued an Order (D.I. 29) finding that Reinbold had
failed to demonstrate that the NALC defendants breached their duty of fair representation and
granting the USPS’ motion;
WHEREAS, on April 10, 2006, the court also issued an Order (D.I. 28) granting the NALC
defendants’ request to extend their time to file a motion for summary judgment;
WHEREAS, on April 21, 2006, the NALC defendants filed a motion for summary judgment
(D.I. 30);
WHEREAS, the motion asserts that summary judgment is appropriate because the law ofthe
case doctrine bars relitigation of the court’s holding that the NALC defendants did not breach their
duty of fair representation;
WHEREAS, Reinbold has not filed a response to the NALC defendants’ motion2;
WHEREAS, after having considered the NALC defendants’ motion, as well as the pertinent
case law, the court concludes that the law of the case doctrine bars Reinbold from relitigating the
court’s finding that the NALC defendants did not breach their duty of fair representation}; and
2 Pursuant to District of Delaware Local Rule 7.1.2(a) (1995), an answer brief to the
NALC defendants’ motion was due on May 5, 2006. The court notes that while Reinbold did not
file any response to the NALC defendants’ motion, he did file a motion for reconsideration of the
court’s April 10, 2006 Order (05-47 D.I. 39) and a motion to appoint counsel (D.I. 32).
3 The doctrine ofthe law of the case limits relitigation of an issue once it has been
decided in an earlier stage ofthe litigation. See In re Continental Airlines, Inc., 279 F.3d 226,
232-33 (3d Cir. 2002) ("The [Supreme] Court has defined the law of the case as a precept that
‘posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govem the
same issues in subsequent stages in the same case.’ This rule of practice promotes the finality
and efficiency of the judicial process by ‘protecting against the agitation of settled issues."’)
2

Case 1:05-cv—00047-Gl\/IS Document 47 Filed 05/12/2006 Page 3 of 3
WHEREAS, the court further concludes that because the NALC defendants did not breach
their duty, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to Reinbold’s claims, and the NALC
defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law;
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The NALC defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (D.I. 30) is GRANTED.
2. Judgment is hereby entered in favor of the NALC defendants.
Dated: May , 2006 ·—
D S ATES DIST CT JUDGE
3