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.

Disclaimer

This blog is made available by Foley & Lardner LLP (“Foley” or “the Firm”) for informational purposes only. It is not meant to convey the Firm’s legal position on behalf of any client, nor is it intended to convey specific legal advice. Any opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of Foley & Lardner LLP, its partners, or its clients. Accordingly, do not act upon this information without seeking counsel from a licensed attorney. This blog is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. Communicating with Foley through this website by email, blog post, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship for any legal matter. Therefore, any communication or material you transmit to Foley through this blog, whether by email, blog post or any other manner, will not be treated as confidential or proprietary. The information on this blog is published “AS IS” and is not guaranteed to be complete, accurate, and or up-to-date. Foley makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation or content of the site. Foley expressly disclaims all other guarantees, warranties, conditions and representations of any kind, either express or implied, whether arising under any statute, law, commercial use or otherwise, including implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Foley or any of its partners, officers, employees, agents or affiliates be liable, directly or indirectly, under any theory of law (contract, tort, negligence or otherwise), to you or anyone else, for any claims, losses or damages, direct, indirect special, incidental, punitive or consequential, resulting from or occasioned by the creation, use of or reliance on this site (including information and other content) or any third party websites or the information, resources or material accessed through any such websites. In some jurisdictions, the contents of this blog may be considered Attorney Advertising. If applicable, please note that prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Photographs are for dramatization purposes only and may include models. Likenesses do not necessarily imply current client, partnership or employee status.