Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Melvin Abdullah El-Amin v. John Blom et al.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND


March 4, 2013

MELVIN ABDULLAH EL-AMIN
v.
JOHN BLOM ET AL.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Catherine C. Blake United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Plaintiff Melvin Abdullah El-Amin has filed a motion to reopen his case, which this court dismissed on July 5, 2012. The court stated that El-Amin's claim of fraudulent misrepresentation against Local #333 would be dismissed without prejudice "pending the outcome of any effort to exhaust his internal union remedies." (Mem., ECF No. 27, at 21). It appears that he subsequently did exhaust his union remedies. El-Amin filed an amended grievance with the union based on the allegations in his complaint that were dismissed without prejudice, and Local #333 responded by admitting that the union "erred" in its representations to El-Amin concerning the amount of dues he owed to be reinstated as a member. (See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. 1 ("Grievance"), ECF No. 29-1; Ex. 2, ("#333 Letter #1"), ECF No. 29-2). Before the error was remedied, however, the union apparently determined that their initial resolution of the grievance was incorrect because ElAmin had transferred his membership to Local #1416. (Pl.'s Mot., Ex. 3 ("Letter #2"), ECF No. 29-3). El-Amin appealed that determination, (Pl.'s Mot., Exs. 5-6 ("Appeal"), ECF Nos. 29-5 & 29-6), but he never received a reply. El-Amin also points out that #333's general counsel, in an affidavit filed in an earlier case, took the position that El-Amin had not effectuated a transfer to Local #1416. (See Pl.'s Mot., Ex. 4 ("Affidavit"), ECF No. 29-4).

Because it appears that El-Amin has attempted to resolve this issue following union procedures and because he has presented evidence that his allegations remain valid, El-Amin may have grounds to file a new complaint against Local #333. However, his exhaustion of union remedies does not entitle him to "reopen" the previous case that was dismissed without prejudice at to Local #333 but with prejudice as to defendants Mitchell and McKnight.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. El-Amin's Motion to Reopen Case (ECF No. 29) is Denied;

2. his Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (ECF No. 30) is Denied;

3. El-Amin is free to file a new complaint against Local #333 which will be duly considered in light of any response from Local #333; and,

4. the Clerk shall send copies of this Memorandum and Order to Melvin Abdullah ElAmin and to counsel of record.

20130304

© 1992-2013 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.