KARLENE PETITT V. AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, No. 21-35494 (9th Cir. 2022)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT FOR PUBLICATION UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FILED MAY 24 2022 MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT KARLENE K. PETITT, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS No. 21-35494 Plaintiff-Appellant, D.C. No. 2:20-cv-01093-RSL v. MEMORANDUM* AIR LINE PILOTS ASSOCIATION, AKA ALPA, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington Robert S. Lasnik, District Judge, Presiding Submitted May 17, 2022** Before: CANBY, TASHIMA, and NGUYEN, Circuit Judges. Karlene K. Petitt appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment in her action alleging breach of the duty of fair representation in connection with an arbitration hearing. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Puri v. Khalsa, * This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. ** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 844 F.3d 1152, 1157 (9th Cir. 2017). We affirm. The district court properly dismissed Petitt’s action because Petitt failed to allege facts sufficient to show that her union attorney’s representation of her during an arbitration hearing, or the actions of the union-appointed arbitration board members, were arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. See Beck v. United Food & Com. Workers Union, Local 99, 506 F.3d 874, 879-80 (9th Cir. 2007) (discussing requirements for a breach of duty of fair representation claim by a union member); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 681 (2009) (to avoid dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and conclusory allegations are not entitled to be assumed true (citation and internal quotation marks omitted)). AFFIRMED. 2 21-35494

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.