Stellantis and UAW File Dueling Motions to Consolidate String of Lawsuits Regarding Strike Threats on Opposite Coasts

The nationwide fight continues between Chrysler owner Stellantis and the United Auto Workers Union (“UAW”) and its local chapters regarding the UAW’s threats to strike if Stellantis does not move forward with planned investment in its U.S. operations. In December, both the UAW and Stellantis filed similar but dueling motions, in which the parties request the Eastern District of Michigan transfer the venue and consolidate the 12 similar suits Stellantis filed, but each requests transfer and consolidation of the cases on opposite coasts. The UAW requests that the case filed in the Eastern District of Michigan be transferred to the Central District of California, where the first case was filed, and Stellantis seeks to have the other 11 cases pending around the country transferred and consolidated with the case pending in the Eastern District of Michigan. It is unsurprising that the UAW seeks to consolidate the cases in the Central District of California given the Ninth Circuit and California courts have a widely known reputation of being more employee friendly. Whereas Stellantis’ motion suggests it seeks a homecourt advantage given it is headquartered in Michigan, the majority of the witnesses reside in Michigan, and the actions giving rise to the suits occurred in Michigan.

Procedural History

In October 2024, in a coordinated attack, Stellantis filed 12 lawsuits alleging the UAW and its local chapters breached the 2023 Collective Bargaining Agreement (“CBA”) and acted in bad faith by attempting to force planned investments through work stoppages contrary to the language of Letter 311, a component of the CBA. Letter 311 provides that planned future investments are conditioned on specific business contingencies. On November 4, 2024, the UAW filed an answer denying many of Stellantis’ allegations and asserting 16 affirmative defenses, including improper venue.

UAW’s Motion

On December 2, 2024, the UAW filed a motion arguing that under the First-to-File Rule, the Eastern District of Michigan case should be transferred to the Central District of California, or alternatively be dismissed or stayed pending the outcome of the Central District case (“UAW Motion”). The UAW filed a nearly identical motion in each case that is pending outside the Central District. The First-to-File Rule is a practical rule arising from the need to manage overlapping litigation across multiple districts. It provides that when actions involve nearly identical parties and legal issues, the court in which the first case was filed should handle the litigation to maximize judicial resources and prevent conflicting court rulings. The UAW Motion argues the Eastern District of Michigan action should be transferred to the Central District of California under the First-to-File rule because the first of the 12 lawsuits was filed in the Central District and the parties and legal issues substantially overlap. The UAW alleges all 12 lawsuits are nearly identical because they all involve similar parties and are all based on the UAW’s plan to “assert identical grievances under the national CBA and take strike votes against Stellantis based on Stellantis’ alleged violation of Letter 311.” The UAW also emphasizes the Central District action is further developed than the Eastern District case because a dispositive motion has already been filed in the former.

Stellantis’s Counter Motion

On December 10, 2024, Stellantis fired off an opposing motion in which it also seeks to transfer venue and consolidate all of the pending suits, albeit in the Eastern District of Michigan (“Stellantis Motion”). The Stellantis Motion is based on a similar, but distinct legal doctrine, from the First-to-File Rule. Stellantis argues that under 28 U.S.C. § 1407, all 12 cases should be transferred and consolidated in the Eastern District because doing so will minimize the burden on the parties and witnesses and promote judicial economy given that Michigan is where Stellantis and the national UAW are headquartered, and is home to the key witnesses and records relevant to the negotiation and implementation of Letter 311. Stellantis rejects the UAW’s First-to-File argument, retorting that the only reason Stellantis first filed in the Central District of California is because it was “swiftly responding” to the local UAW’s call for a strike vote in that location, which had yet to occur in any other jurisdiction, thereby “forcing” Stellantis to file in the Central District. Stellantis also argues that the dispositive motion the UAW filed in the Central District is “a poorly disguised strategic maneuver to argue that proceedings in California are more advanced than in other jurisdictions,” but that motion will not be heard until January 30, 2025.

The Eastern District’s ruling is forthcoming. Foley is closely following this matter and will report further when the Eastern District issues a ruling regarding the parties’ dueling motions.

For more reading on this topic, see our October article here.

Clause de non-responsabilité

Ce blog est mis à disposition par Foley & Lardner LLP ("Foley" ou "le cabinet") à des fins d'information uniquement. Il n'a pas pour but d'exprimer la position juridique du cabinet au nom d'un client, ni de fournir des conseils juridiques spécifiques. Les opinions exprimées dans cet article ne reflètent pas nécessairement celles de Foley & Lardner LLP, de ses partenaires ou de ses clients. En conséquence, n'agissez pas sur la base de ces informations sans demander l'avis d'un avocat agréé. Ce blog n'est pas destiné à créer, et sa réception ne constitue pas, une relation avocat-client. Communiquer avec Foley par le biais de ce site web, que ce soit par e-mail, par un billet de blog ou par tout autre moyen, ne crée pas une relation avocat-client pour une quelconque question juridique. Par conséquent, toute communication ou matériel que vous transmettez à Foley par le biais de ce blog, que ce soit par e-mail, par billet de blog ou de toute autre manière, ne sera pas traité comme confidentiel ou propriétaire. Les informations contenues dans ce blog sont publiées "EN L'ÉTAT" et ne sont pas garanties comme étant complètes, exactes ou à jour. Foley ne donne aucune garantie, expresse ou implicite, quant au fonctionnement ou au contenu du site. Foley rejette expressément toute autre garantie, condition ou déclaration de quelque nature que ce soit, expresse ou implicite, découlant d'un statut, d'une loi, d'un usage commercial ou autre, y compris les garanties implicites de qualité marchande, d'adéquation à un usage particulier, de titre et d'absence de contrefaçon. En aucun cas Foley ou l'un de ses partenaires, dirigeants, employés, agents ou affiliés ne pourra être tenu responsable, directement ou indirectement, en vertu de toute théorie de droit (contrat, délit, négligence ou autre), envers vous ou toute autre personne, pour toute réclamation, perte ou dommage, direct, indirect, spécial, accessoire, punitif ou consécutif, résultant de ou occasionné par la création, l'utilisation ou la confiance en ce site (y compris les informations et autres contenus) ou tout autre site tiers ou les informations, ressources ou matériels accessibles à travers de tels sites web. Dans certaines juridictions, le contenu de ce blog peut être considéré comme de la publicité pour les avocats. Le cas échéant, veuillez noter que des résultats antérieurs ne garantissent pas un résultat similaire. Les photographies ne sont utilisées qu'à des fins de représentation et peuvent inclure des modèles. Les portraits n'impliquent pas nécessairement le statut de client, de partenaire ou d'employé actuel.