Coleman v. Blachowski, 54 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 1995). · Go Syfert
Search
Coleman v. Blachowski, 54 F.3d 776 (6th Cir. 1995). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 2 distinct cases · “a limitations period could be extended indefinitely simply by making an untimely request for arbitration”
43 citation events (14 in the last 25 years) across 14 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Warehouse, Production, Maintenance & Miscellaneous Employees, Furniture, Piano & Express Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 661 v. Zenith Logistics, Inc. (ca6, 2008-12-23)
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1995 2010 2026
Top citers, strongest first. 11 distinct citers.
discussed Cited as authority (quoted) Warehouse, Production, Maintenance & Miscellaneous Employees, Furniture, Piano & Express Drivers & Helpers Local Union No. 661 v. Zenith Logistics, Inc.
6th Cir. · 2008 · signal: see · quote attribution · 1 verbatim quote · confidence high
a limitations period could be extended indefinitely simply by making an untimely request for arbitration
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Charles Ahumada v. United States (2×)
8th Cir. · 2021 · confidence medium
See generally Jackson v. Johnson, 217 F.3d 360, 364-65 (5th Cir. 2000) (petition for rehearing is discretionary); United States v. Coney, 120 F.3d 26, 28 (3d Cir. 1997) (same); McNeal v. United States, 54 F.3d 776, *2 (6th Cir. 1995) (unpublished table order) (same).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Muhammad v. City of New York Dept. of Corrections
S.D.N.Y. · 1995 · confidence medium
Allard v. Abramajtys, 54 F.3d 776, n. 1 (6th Cir. May 12, 1995) (unpublished disposition; text available in Westlaw, No. 94 — 2161).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Kaiser v. United States
W.D. Mich. · 2025 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“A § 2255 motion may not be used to relitigate an issue that was raised on appeal absent highly exceptional circumstances.” DuPont v. United States, 76 F.3d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Giraldo v. United States, 54 F.3d 776, 776 (6th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gilliam-French v. United States
W.D. Mich. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence medium
“A § 2255 motion may not be used to relitigate an issue that was raised on appeal absent highly exceptional circumstances.” DuPont v. United States, 76 F.3d 108, 110 (6th Cir. 1996); see also Giraldo v. United States, 54 F.3d 776, 776 (6th Cir. 1995).
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Gregg v. United States
M.D. Fla. · 2024 · signal: see also · confidence low
Fla. Oct. 21, 2011); see also McNeal v. United States, 54 F.3d 776 (Table) (6th Cir. 1995) (“It is apparent from both this court’s local rules and the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure that the granting of a rehearing en banc by this court is discretionary.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Sherrie Kaw v. School District of Hillsborough County
11th Cir. · 2011 · signal: see, e.g. · confidence low
See, e.g., Greer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 54 F.3d 776 (6th Cir.1995) (plaintiffs vasovagal syncope did not substantially limit a major life activity). 2 The district court found, however, that there was a material issue of fact.
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Culp v. United States
E.D. Mich. · 2003 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Giraldo v. United States, 54 F.3d 776 (6th Cir.) (unpublished) ("It is well settled that a § 2255 motion may not be employed to relitigate an issue that was raised and considered on appeal absent highly exceptional circumstances, such as an intervening change in the law.”), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 892 , 116 S.Ct. 240 , 133 L.Ed.2d 167 (1995). 4 .
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Brown v. Renter's Choice, Inc.
N.D. Ohio · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Greer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 54 F.3d 776 , 1995 WL 283778 (6th Cir.1995) (finding pretext not shown by attack on legitimate factual basis for termination; plaintiff must show, for example, others not discharged for similar acts), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1053 , 116 S.Ct. 723 , 133 L.Ed.2d 675 (1996); Tragler v. Rondy Inc., 45 F.3d 431 , 1994 WL 709285, *3 (6th Cir.1994) (stating that "[c]onclusory assertions are not sufficient to allow a nonmovant to withstand a motion for summary judgment .... disputation of facts underlying defendant's legitimate reason is not sufficient to carry pl…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Evans v. Toys R Us-Ohio, Inc.
S.D. Ohio · 1999 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Greer v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 54 F.3d 776 , 1995 WL 283778 (6th Cir.1995) (pretext not shown by attack on legitimate factual basis for termination; plaintiff must show, for example, others not discharged for similar acts), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 1053 , 116 S.Ct. 723 , 133 L.Ed.2d 675 (1996); Tragler v. Rondy Inc., 45 F.3d 431 , 1994 WL 709285 (6th Cir.1994) (stating that "[cjonclusory assertions are not sufficient to allow a nonmovant to withstand a motion for summary judgment.... disputation of facts underlying defendant’s legitimate reason is not sufficient to carry plaintiff's b…
discussed Cited "see, e.g." Alberto v. Dupont v. United States
6th Cir. · 1996 · signal: see also · confidence low
See also Giraldo v. United States, 54 F.3d 776 (6th Cir.) (unpublished) (“It is well settled that a § 2255 motion may not be employed to relitigate an issue that was raised and considered on appeal absent highly exceptional circumstances, such as an intervening change in the law.”), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 116 S.Ct. 240 , 133 L.Ed.2d 167 (1995); Ford v. United States, *111 36 F.3d 1097 (6th Cir.1994) (unpublished) (same), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1390 , 131 L.Ed.2d 241 (1995); Kelly v. United States, 977 F.2d 581 (6th Cir.1992) (unpublished) (“The remainder of Kelly’s argum…
Edward Coleman
v.
Louis Blachowski, President American Federation of Grain Millers, Local 58, Bargaining Committee Kevin Wilt Tom Traub General Mills, Bargaining Committee
94-4252.
Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
May 17, 1995.
54 F.3d 776
Published
1 passage pin-cited by 1 case
Pinpoint authority: bottom 87%
Citer courts: Sixth Circuit (1)

54 F.3d 776
NOTICE: Sixth Circuit Rule 24(c) states that citation of unpublished dispositions is disfavored except for establishing res judicata, estoppel, or the law of the case and requires service of copies of cited unpublished dispositions of the Sixth Circuit.

Edward COLEMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Louis BLACHOWSKI, President; American Federation of Grain
Millers, Local #58, Bargaining Committee; Kevin
Wilt; Tom Traub; General Mills,
Bargaining Committee,
Defendants-Appellees.

No. 94-4252.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

May 17, 1995.

Before: BROWN, KENNEDY and NORRIS, Circuit Judges.

ORDER

1

Edward Coleman, a pro se Ohio resident, appeals a district court judgment dismissing his labor relations case filed pursuant to Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185. The case has been referred to a panel of the court pursuant to Rule 9(a), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. Upon examination, this panel unanimously agrees that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a).

2

Seeking monetary and injunctive relief, Edward Coleman and Lee Russell sued their union, union representatives, and employer, General Mills, contending that they were denied seniority rights when General Mills opened a new cake factory. Coleman and Russell filed a grievance with the union concerning an alleged breach of the union contract. The grievance was denied at all levels of the grievance process.

3

After exhausting their available administrative remedies, Coleman and Russell filed a "hybrid" Sec. 301 action against the union and General Mills. The district court subsequently granted Russell's motion for voluntary dismissal. Defendants moved for summary judgment which Coleman opposed. The district court granted summary judgment for the defendants and dismissed the case. In his timely appeal, Coleman argues that the defendants should not have been granted summary judgment because they failed to answer his amended complaint, he was denied seniority rights, and the union failed to provide him with adequate representation.

4

This court's review of a grant of summary judgment is de novo. See EEOC v. University of Detroit, 904 F.2d 331, 334 (6th Cir. 1990). Summary judgment is proper if there is no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986).

5

Coleman contends that the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants because the defendants have not filed an answer to his amended complaint. However, the record reveals that Coleman's amended complaint was not served on the defendants. Therefore, the defendants could not have filed an answer to the amended complaint. Further, Coleman did not raise this issue in the district court which means that the issue is not reviewable on appeal. Foster v. Barilow, 6 F.3d 405, 407 (6th Cir. 1993).

6

Turning to the merits, the general rule is that a hybrid Sec. 301 action involves two claims: breach of the collective bargaining agreement by the employer and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. See DelCostello v. International Bhd. of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 164 (1983). The two claims are inextricably interdependent. Id. at 164-65. To recover against either the company or the union, Coleman must show that the company breached the collective bargaining agreement and that the union breached its duty of fair representation. Bagsby v. Lewis Bros., Inc., 820 F.2d 799, 801 (6th Cir. 1987). The undisputed facts establish that General Mills did not breach its collective bargaining agreement nor did the union breach its duty of fair representation. Therefore, Coleman has failed to establish a hybrid Sec. 301 action. Id.

7

Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. Rule 9(b)(3), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.