CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union , 236 F. App'x 562 ( 2007 )

[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
JUNE 7, 2007
THOMAS K. KAHN
No. 06-15637
CLERK
________________________
D.C. Docket No. 05-00672 CV-J-25-TEM
CSX TRANSPORTATION, INC.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION,
RUFUS MCINTYRE, General Chairman,
United Transportation Union, et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
________________________
(June 7, 2007)
Before ANDERSON, MARCUS and COX, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
CSX Transportation, Inc. (“CSX”) appeals following the district court's grant
of summary judgment in favor of the Defendants United Transportation Union and
Rufus McIntyre, the Union's General Chairman. CSX presents three arguments on
this appeal: (1) the district court erred in granting summary judgment to the
Defendants; (2) the district court erred in granting summary judgment while
discovery motions were still pending; and (3) the district court erred in denying
CSX's motion for leave to amend the complaint. After oral argument and careful
consideration, we conclude that none of these arguments warrants reversal.
The district court's decision that no substantial evidence supports CSX's claim
that a work stoppage or slowdown occurred presents a close question. That decision
need not detain us, however, because we conclude that the district court properly
determined that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to the Defendants'
involvement in any work stoppage or slowdown and that no substantial evidence
supported the claim that the Defendants were involved in any work stoppage or
slowdown.
We reject CSX's argument that the district court abused its discretion in ruling
on the summary judgment motion while discovery motions were pending because
CSX explicitly asked the court to proceed to rule on the summary judgment motion.
2
And, we find no abuse of discretion in the denial of CSX's motion for leave
to amend the complaint because the district court properly determined that the
amendment would be futile given the lack of evidence that Defendants were involved
in illegal job action.
AFFIRMED.1
1
The complaint names as defendants "John & Jane Doe, UTU Represented CSXT Employees
Nos. 1 through 100." This is no impediment to the closing of this case because the Federal Rules
do not authorize suit against fictitious parties. See New v. Sports and Recreation, Inc., 114 F.3d
1092, 1094 n.1 (11th Cir. 1997); Wiggins v. Risk Enter. Mgmt. Ltd., 14 F. Supp. 2d 1279, 1279 n.1
(M.D. Ala. 1998).
3