Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Plute Homes v. LiUNA (E.D. Mich) (May 12, 2010)

Plute Homes v. LiUNA (E.D. Mich) (May 12, 2010)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 206 |Likes:
Departing employees engaged in an email/voicemail campaign. The Employer alleged that this campaign violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit.
Departing employees engaged in an email/voicemail campaign. The Employer alleged that this campaign violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The Court disagreed and dismissed the lawsuit.

More info:

Published by: Venkat Balasubramani on May 19, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





For this reason, the Court denies Plaintiff’s
ex parte
motion for oral argument.Additionally, since the Court granted Plaintiff’s
ex parte
motion to submit a 30-page responsebrief to Defendants’ motion to dismiss, the Court denies Plaintiff’s request to submit a sur-reply.
PULTE HOMES, INC.,Plaintiff,Case No. 09-13638vs.Hon. Lawrence P. ZatkofLABORERS’ INTERNATIONAL UNION OF NORTH AMERICA,TERENCE M. O’SULLIVAN, andRANDY MAYHEW,Defendants._____________________________/ 
AT A SESSION of said Court, held in the United States Courthouse,in the City of Port Huron, State of Michigan, on May 12, 2010PRESENT: THE HONORABLE LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFFUNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ motion to dismiss [dkt 29] and Plaintiff’s
ex parte
motion for oral argument and/or leave to file a sur-reply to Defendants’ motion to dismiss [dkt36]. The parties have fully briefed Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court finds that the factsand legal arguments are adequately presented in the parties’ papers such that the decision processwould not be significantly aided by oral argument.
Therefore, pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e)(2),it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to dismiss be resolved on the briefs submitted. For the
Case 2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Document 37 Filed 05/12/10 Page 1 of 9
2reasons set forth below, Defendants’ motion to dismiss [dkt 29] is GRANTED.
Pulte Homes, Inc. (“Plaintiff”) is the largest new home builder in the United States. Itscorporate headquarters are located in Bloomfield Hills, Michigan, and it operates in many otherstates, including Arizona, Texas, California, and Nevada. Defendant Laborers’ International Unionof North America (“LiUNA”) is a labor organization that represents workers in construction andother industries. Defendants Terence O’Sullivan and Randy Mayhew are employed, respectively,as LiUNA’s Vice President and National Director. LiUNA does not represent any of Plaintiff’semployees. However, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants have attempted for the past two years toforce Plaintiff’s subcontractors to enter into agreements with LiUNA.This action arises out of Defendants’ alleged response to the termination of one of Plaintiff’semployees and the alleged termination of seven other individuals employed by Plaintiff. OnSeptember 4, 2009, Pulte Building Systems, a division of Pulte Homes Inc., terminated RobertoBaltierra (“Baltierra”), who had previously worked as a crew lead. Plaintiff maintains that Baltierrawas terminated for various behavioral and performance problems, including failure to comply withsafety procedures, failure to follow the legitimate directions of his supervisors, and allowingundocumented laborers to work. Defendants aver that Baltierra was fired for wearing a t-shirt thatexpressed support for LiUNA. Defendants also claim that seven other individuals employed byPlaintiff were fired for similarly expressing support for LiUNA. Plaintiff disputes that theseindividuals were terminated, and contends that they remained free to return to work.Plaintiff asserts that, on September 9, 2009, Defendants began a targeted effort to sabotageand interrupt Plaintiff’s business operations and negatively affect Plaintiff’s relationships with the
Case 2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Document 37 Filed 05/12/10 Page 2 of 9
3public, its employees, and potential customers. Plaintiff believes Defendants have encouragedLiUNA supporters to inundate Plaintiff with mass quantities of phone calls and e-mails in an attemptto inhibit Plaintiff’s ability to conduct its day-to-day business activities and to intimidate Plaintiff’semployees. LiUNA’s website featured a “call to action,” which provided a pre-typed e-mail voicingopposition to Plaintiff’s alleged termination of employees for supporting the union. This e-mail waspre-addressed to Plaintiff and allowed users to send it to Plaintiff with the click of a few buttons.LiUNA also distributed flyers to the same effect,
, encouraging supporters to call Plaintiff andexpress their dissatisfaction.According to Plaintiff, its e-mail system is set up such that each user is permitted only acertain number of e-mails in his or her inbox at one time. Similarly, a limited number of phone callscan be received at any given time, and voice-mail inboxes can only hold a limited number of voice-mails. Plaintiff claims that the high volume of calls and e-mails forced some of its employees toshut down their voice-mail and e-mail inboxes. On September 13, 2009, Plaintiff mailed a letter toDefendants, demanding them to cease their activities. Plaintiff filed this action on September 15,2009, after the telephone calls continued. On September 24, 2009, the Court entered an orderdenying Plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction on the basis that the Court lacked jurisdictionto issue an injunction in an ongoing labor dispute under the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 29 U.S.C. § 101
et seq
.As a result of the numerous telephone calls, voice-mails, and e-mails, Plaintiff seeks damagespursuant to alleged violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act , 18 U.S.C. § 1030
et seq.
,violations of Nevada’s Computer Crime laws, N.R.S. § 205.473,
et seq.
, trespass to chattels, tortiousinterference with business relationships and expectancies, and civil conspiracy. Plaintiff also
Case 2:09-cv-13638-LPZ-MAR Document 37 Filed 05/12/10 Page 3 of 9

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
jsaviri3537 liked this
Legal Writer liked this
valsimmons liked this
ahubsch liked this
ahubsch liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->