# Gould v. McCarron

> District Court, E.D. Missouri · March 14, 2023

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238412

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Missouri
- **Decided:** March 14, 2023
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238412

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- affirming application of collateral estoppel to bar subsequent suit by the same plaintiff because determination regarding subject matter jurisdiction in prior suit involved application of the same legal standard

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

JONATHAN M. GOULD, on behalf of )
St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters’ Regional )
Council (Mid-America Carpenters Regional )
Council), )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No. 4:22-CV-255 RLW
)
DOUGLAS J. MCCARRON, )
)
Defendant, )
)
and )
)
UNITED BROTHERHOOD OF )
CARPENTERS AND JOINERS OF )
AMERICA, )
)
Intervenor. )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Jonathan M. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File a
Verified Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) of the Labor Management Reporting and
Disclosure Act of 1959 (“LMRDA”). Mr. Gould, who is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel, seeks to bring suit on behalf of the members of “St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters’
Regional Council (Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council)”1 against Douglas J. McCarron,
the General President of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (“UBC”).

1The St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters’ Regional Council, (hereafter referred to as
STLKCCRC), is no longer in existence. In September 2021, the STLKCCRC was dissolved, and
its locals were assigned to the Chicago Regional Council of Carpenters (the “Chicago Council”).
The Chicago Council was then renamed the Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council (the
“Mid-America Council”). Mr. Gould was a member of STLKCCRC and is currently a member
of the Mid-America Council.
Mr. Gould alleges Mr. McCarron breached his fiduciary duties to members of STLKCCRC by
failing to act when it was brought to his attention that officers of STLKCCRC were
misappropriating union funds.
On April 7, 2022, the UBC filed a motion to intervene in this action, which Mr. Gould
opposed. The Court allowed the UBC to intervene to defend its interests in the case.2 The UCB

filed a Memorandum in Opposition to Mr. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File a Verified
Complaint, (ECF No. 11), but Mr. Gould did not file a reply memorandum in support of his
motion, and the time to do so has expired. Defendant Douglas J. McCarron did not respond to
Mr. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File a Verified Complaint, and the time to do so has expired.
Therefore, Mr. Gould’s motion is ripe for review. For the reasons that follow, the Court denies
Mr. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File a Verified Complaint pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b)
I. Background
This matter involves a long-time dispute over the governance of a regional council of the
UBC. Mr. Gould seeks damages on behalf of STLKCCRC, now known as the Mid-America

Council, against Defendant McCarron, the General President of the UBC, an international labor
organization headquartered in Washington, D.C., for alleged breaches of his fiduciary duties to
the regional council and its members. Mr. Gould has a long history with the STLKCCRC, and
he has brought a number of lawsuits against the UBC and other union entities and officers, the
background of which are relevant to the issues at bar.
A. Relevant Prior Litigation

2This case was initially assigned to the Honorable Jean C. Hamilton. Judge Hamilton
took inactive status, and on December 15, 2022, the Clerk of Court transferred this case to the
undersigned. (ECF No. 26).

2
Mr. Gould at one time worked as the Business Agent of the STLKCCRC. In August
2014, he elected to run for Executive Secretary-Treasurer (“EST”), the highest union position at
a regional council, against the then-EST, Terrance Nelson. Mr. Gould was not elected EST of
STLKCCRC and following his defeat, he was not reappointed Business Agent. Mr. Nelson
continued as EST of STLKCCRC until September 2015, when Al Bond became EST of the

regional council.
In 2016, Mr. Gould filed suit in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis against the
STLKCCRC and its officers, including Messrs. Nelson and Bond, among others, for wrongful
termination, defamation, injurious falsehood, and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Gould v. St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council, et al., No. 1622-CC09954, (22nd
Jud. Cir. State of Mo.) (“Wrongful Termination Lawsuit”). Mr. Gould’s wrongful termination
claims were based on his alleged whistleblower reporting of what he claims were violations of
§ 501 of the LMRDA. Id. In his state court petition, Mr. Gould summarized his allegations of
§ 501 misappropriations giving rise to his Wrongful Termination Lawsuit as follows:

expenditures on: (1) flying family and friends to [STLKCCRC] conventions or
conferences; (2) expenses for family and friends at [STLKCCRC] conventions or
conferences; (3) alcohol expenses at conventions and conferences; (4)
[STLKCCRC] vehicle policy; (5) [STLKCCRC] ‘training seminars’; (6)
[STLKCCRC] ‘per diem’; (7) non-business related lunches; (8) concert tickets; (9)
musicals; (10) plays; (11) comedy shows; (12) sporting events; (13) sightseeing
tours; (14) sea world/zoo; (15) souvenirs; (16) gifts; (17) loans in excess of
$2000.00 to [STLKCCRC] employees; (18) non-business related alcohol expenses;
(19) reimbursement of medical insurance deductibles; (20) country club
membership; (21) birthday and retirement parties; (22) vehicle insurance
deductibles for accidents; and (23) other incidentals being paid for by
[STLKCCRC] for Business Agents, Executive Board members, employees, and
their families.

(ECF No. 11, Ex. 3 at 18-19).

3
In 2018, Mr. Gould moved to amend his petition in the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit to
add a claim under § 501 directly and a claim under the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt
Organizations Act (“RICO”). The state court denied Mr. Gould’s motion for leave to file an
amended petition with regard to the § 501 claim, because he neither filed a verified application
nor had shown “good cause” for bringing the claim. Mr. Gould, however, was allowed leave to

amend his petition to allege a RICO claim.
Following the addition of the RICO claim, the defendants in the Wrongful Termination
Lawsuit removed the cause of action to federal court based on federal question subject matter
jurisdiction. Gould v. St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters Regional Council, et al., No. 4:18-CV-
936 AGF (E.D. Mo.). Once in federal court, Mr. Gould sought to voluntarily dismiss the RICO
claim and moved to remand the case to state court.
On August 2, 2018, the Honorable Audrey G. Fleissig remanded the case back to state
court. In the remand order, Mr. Gould was admonished for gamesmanship and forum shopping.
(4:18-CV-936 AGF, ECF No. 34). Judge Fleissig also awarded the STLKCCRC $11,568.00 in

attorney’s fees and costs associated with the removal. Following the filing of another Amended
Petition in state court, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which was granted. The
dismissal of the Mr. Gould’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit was affirmed by the Missouri Court
of Appeals for the Eastern District of Missouri. Gould v. St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters'
Reg'l Council, 639 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2020)
While the Wrongful Termination Lawsuit was pending, in January 2018, Mr. Gould sent
a request to Mr. Bond for an accounting to recover damages pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). Mr.
Gould raised allegations that officers at STLKCCRC were misappropriating union funds. In

4
response to Mr. Gould’s demand, STLKCCRC retained Calibre, an accounting firm, to perform
an audit and accounting. Calibre investigated Mr. Gould’s allegations and in August 2018, the
accounting firm submitted its findings to the regional council. While Calibre did find instances
of improper expense reimbursements, for the most part it found that STLKCCRC’s expense
policy complied with Department of Labor and Internal Revenue Service requirements.

Mr. Gould was unsatisfied with Calibre’s accounting and report. On April 16, 2019, Mr.
Gould filed in this district a Verified Application for Leave to File Verified Complaint Under 29
U.S.C. § 501(b) against Mr. Bond. Gould v. Bond, No. 4:19-CV-925 DDN (“Initial § 501
Action”). In his Initial § 501 Action, Mr. Gould sought leave to assert claims against Mr. Bond
for breach of his fiduciary duties to STLKCCRC based on allegations of misappropriating union
funds through improper reimbursement of expenses for the personal benefit of union officers. In
the Initial § 501 Action, Mr. Gould alleged the following misappropriations of funds, which
track the allegations of misappropriations in Mr. Gould’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit:
a. flying family and friends to [STLKCCRC] conventions or conferences; b.
expenses for family and friends at [STLKCCRC] conventions or conferences; c.
alcohol expenses at conventions and conferences; d. [STLKCCRC] vehicle
policy; e. [STLKCCRC] “training seminars;” f. [STLKCCRC] “per diem;” g.
non-business related lunches; h. concert tickets; i. musicals; j. plays; k. comedy
shows; l. sporting events; m. sightseeing tours; n. sea world/zoo; o. souvenirs; p.
gifts; q. loans in excess of $2000.00 to [STLKCCRC] employees; r. non-business
related alcohol expenses; s. reimbursement of medical insurance deductibles; t.
country club membership; u. birthday and retirement parties; v. vehicle insurance
deductibles for accidents; w. Dinner / Lunch / Drinks reimbursed by
[STLKCCRC] despite receipts missing: 1) who the transaction was with; 2) what
the transaction was for; 3) when the transaction occurred; 4) where the transaction
occurred; and 5) why the transaction occurred (“5 Ws”); and x. other incidentals
being paid for by the [STLKCCRC] for [STLKCCRC] Business Agents,
[STLKCCRC] Employees, [STLKCCRC] Executive Board Members and their
families.

(4:19-CV-925 DNN, ECF No. 1 at 4-5).

5
The STLKCCRC intervened in Mr. Gould’s Initial § 501 Action, and on August 19,
2019, the Honorable David D. Noce entered an Order denying Mr. Gould leave to file his
proposed Verified Complaint. Judge Noce found that Mr. Gould failed to satisfy a condition
precedent to bringing suit – that the union failed or refused to take appropriate action in response
to Mr. Gould’s request for an accounting to recover damages. See Gould v. Bond, No. 4:19-CV-

925 DDN, 2019 WL 3890776, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 2019). The Memorandum and Order
denying Mr. Gould leave to file a verified complaint states:
The Court finds that plaintiff has failed to meet a statutory prerequisite: plaintiff
has not shown that the union failed or refused to make a legitimate accounting. In
January 2018, plaintiff made a demand to STLKCCRC, and the Union contracted
an independent accounting firm, was audited, and was reimbursed for any
inadequately documented expenses.

(4:19-CV-925 DDN, ECF No. 33 at 6-7). Judge Noce noted that while the accounting revealed
some discrepancies, they were resolved through further documentation or reimbursement. (Id.)
Mr. Gould had argued that the accounting was so limited and biased it amounted to a sham.
Judge Noce did not find Mr. Gould’s argument to be persuasive. Judge Noce noted that the
accounting addressed the points Mr. Gould raised in his request for an accounting, and Mr.
Gould “failed to show an objectively reasonable ground for belief that the union’s accounting or
other action was not legitimate.” (Id.). Mr. Gold filed an appeal, and on June 14, 2021, the
Eighth Circuit affirmed Judge Noce’s order denying Mr. Gould’s motion for leave to file a
verified complaint under § 501(b). See Gould ex rel. St. Louis - Kansas City Carpenters Reg’l
Council v. Bond, 1 F.4th 583 (8th Cir. 2021).
On September 24, 2021, following complaints of misconduct at STLKCCRC, UBC
President Douglas J. McCarron dissolved the STLKCCRC and reassigned its locals to the

6
Chicago Council, which was renamed the Mid-America Council. On October 5, 2021, Mr.
Gould filed suit, without the assistance of counsel, in this district against the UBC and Mr.
McCarron to stop the so-called “merger.” Gould v. United Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners
of America and Douglas J. McCarron, Case No. 4:21-CV-1187 RLW (“Merger Lawsuit”).3
According to his complaint in the Merger Lawsuit, Mr. Gould was unhappy with what he

referred to as the “merger,” because he believed Mr. McCarron was using the consolidation of
the two regional councils to coverup malfeasance by STLKCCRC officers. Mr. Gould failed to
timely respond to the defendants’ motion for summary judgment in the Merger Lawsuit and
following the entry of an order to show cause, on September 2, 2022, the Court dismissed the
cause of action without prejudice for Mr. Gould’s failure to prosecute and comply with the
Court’s orders.
On March 10, 2022, the Mid-America Council filed a lawsuit in this district pursuant to
29 U.S.C. § 501 against Mr. Bond for breach of his fiduciary duties seeking, among things,
reimbursement for unauthorized expenditures. Mid-America Carpenters Regional Council v.

Bond, et al., Case No. 4:22-CV-291 SEP (“Mid-America § 501 Action”). In the Mid-America
§ 501 Action, Mr. Bond is accused of misappropriating over $4 million in STLKCCRC’s assets
to purchase unauthorized billboards, in addition to over $6,000 for personal expenses for medical
bills and theater tickets, and approximately $18,000 for an unlawful retroactive salary increase.
Mr. Gould has moved to intervene in the Mid-America § 501 Action, which remains pending
before the Honorable Sarah E. Pitlyk.

3Mr. Gould was represented by counsel in his Wrongful Termination Lawsuit and Initial
§ 501 Action.

7
B. Allegations in Case at Bar
In the case at bar, Mr. Gould seeks to bring this action on behalf of the STLKCCRC, now
part of the Mid America Council and its members, against Mr. McCarron for breaches of his
fiduciary duties under 29 U.S.C. § 501. Mr. Gould alleges Mr. McCarron violated his fiduciary
duties by

(1) allowing misappropriation of [STLKCCRC] and UBC funds;

(2) ignoring repeated attempts from Mr. Gould to notify Mr. McCarron and
the UBC that former ESTs Terry Nelson and Al Bond were leading efforts
to misappropriate [STLKCCRC] and UBC funds; [and]

(3) failing to take action against similar, systematic acts of misconduct
perpetrated by multiple [STLKCCRC] officers and agents.

(ECF No. 1 at 2).
Mr. Gould alleges Mr. McCarron breached his 29 U.S.C. § 501 fiduciary duties by
allowing others to misappropriate STLKCCRC and UBC dues monies. Mr. Gould does not
allege that Mr. McCarron misused union funds. Rather, he alleges that Mr. McCarron “was
aware of and complicit in” Messrs. Nelson’s and Bond’s breaches of fiduciary duty in that Mr.
McCarron was aware STLKCCRC’s expense policies and the LMRDA were being violated.
(ECF No. 1 at 22, 25). Mr. Gould contends he brought these breaches to the General President’s
attention as recently as October 2021, but Mr. McCarron ignored his appeal and demands under
§ 501(b). Mr. Gould further alleges Mr. McCarron has failed to properly account for
STLKCCRC and UBC funds or pursue other action. More specifically, “The UBC, General
Executive Board, and Mr. McCarron as [General President], refused and/or failed to sue or
recover damages or secure a forensic account[ing] by a verified independent CPA or firm, or to

8
seek appropriate relief within a reasonable time after [Mr. Gould]’s request was made on
October 3, 2021.” (ECF No. 1 at 25).
For relief, Mr. Gould requests that the Court enter judgment “in favor of and for the
benefit of” the STLKCCRC/UBC and against Mr. McCarron for actual damages believed to
exceed $10 million. (ECF. No. at 26). Mr. Gould also requests that the Court issue an injunction

against Mr. McCarron prohibiting him from committing wrongful and negligent acts. Finally,
Mr. Gould requests costs and attorney’s fees, although he is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel.
II. Discussion
A. Threshold Consideration
As an initial matter, Mr. Gould seeks to bring suit on behalf of STLKCCRC and its
members. Mr. Gould, however, is proceeding pro se without the assistance of counsel.4 While
federal law authorizes a plaintiff to plead his own case personally, he cannot represent another
person or entity in court. Iannaccone v. L., 142 F.3d 553, 558 (2d Cir. 1998) (“because pro se

means to appear for one’s self, a person may not appear on another person’s behalf in the other’s
cause. A person must be litigating an interest personal to him.”); Knoefler v. United Bank of
Bismarck, 20 F.3d 347, 348 (8th Cir. 1994) (a nonlawyer has no right to represent another entity
in a court of the United States); Lewis v. Lenc-Smith Mfg. Co., 784 F.2d 829, 830 (7th Cir.

4Mr. Gould paid the filing fee and has not moved for the appointment of counsel. But
even if he had asked for an attorney, Mr. Gould would not be entitled to one. First, there is no
constitutional or statutory right to appointed counsel in a civil case. Ward v. Smith, 721 F.3d
940, 942 (8th Cir. 2013); Nelson v. Redfield Lithograph Printing, 728 F.2d 1003, 1004 (8th Cir.
1984). Second, Mr. Gould is not proceeding in forma pauperis. When certain circumstances are
met, the Court may appoint counsel to indigent litigants who are proceeding in a civil matter in
forma pauperis. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(1) (a court “may request an attorney to represent any
person unable to afford counsel.”).

9
1986) (stating that a person who is not licensed to practice law may not represent another
individual in federal court). And, under Missouri law, a non-attorney representing another
person in court is engaged the unauthorized practice of law, which can carry criminal penalties.
See Mo. Rev. Stat. § 484.020.1. Mr. Gould may not engage in the practice of law on behalf of
others.5 See Jones ex rel. Jones v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 401 F.3d 950, 952 (8th Cir. 2005);

Ackra Direct Mktg. Corp. v. Fingerhut Corp., 86 F.3d 852, 857 (8th Cir. 1996); Knoefler, 20
F.3d at 348; United States v. Van Stelton, 988 F.2d 70, 70 (8th Cir. 1993).
A suit under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) is necessarily a suit filed on behalf of another entity,
namely the union. Section 501(b) provides in relevant part:
[a] member may sue [a union] officer … in any district court of the United States
… to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the
benefit of the labor organization.

29 U.S.C. § 501(b). As the claims in Mr. Gould’s proposed Verified Complaint are not personal
to him, but rather are claims on behalf of another entity, the union, Mr. Gould cannot pursue this
cause of action on his own without an attorney. Knoefler, 20 F.3d at 348.
While there are a plethora of cases holding a pro se litigant may not represent the
interests of other entities, the Court has not uncovered a case holding a pro se litigant may not
pursue a § 501(b) claim on behalf of a union. See, e.g., Simon v. Hartford Life, Inc., 546 F.3d
661 (9th Cir. 2008) (ERISA participant was not authorized to pursue claim pro se in
representative capacity on behalf of plan); Stoner v. Santa Clara Cnty. Off. of Educ., 502 F.3d
1116, 1126–27 (9th Cir. 2007) (qui tam action brought “for the person and for the United States

5As discussed above, Mr. Gould has brought suit in this district on behalf of his regional
council in the past, but he was presented by counsel. See Gould v. Bond, No. 4:19-CV-925
DDN, 2019 WL 3890776, at *1 (E.D. Mo. Aug. 19, 2019), aff'd sub nom. Gould on behalf of St.
Louis - Kansas City Carpenters Reg’l Council v. Bond, 1 F.4th 583 (8th Cir. 2021).

10
government” cannot be pursued pro se ); Jones ex rel. Jones, 401 F.3d at 951–52 (non-attorney
administrator of decedent's estate may not proceed pro se on behalf of estate); In re Am. W.
Airlines, 40 F.3d 1058, 1059 (9th Cir. 1994) (holding that a non-attorney may not appear on
behalf of a partnership); Phillips v. Tobin, 548 F.2d 408, 415 (2d Cir. 1976) (pro se litigant may
not prosecute a shareholder’s derivative action); Oxendine v. Williams, 509 F.2d 1405, 1407 (4th

Cir. 1975) (pro se prisoner may not bring a class action on behalf of fellow prisoners). The
Court believes the doctrine extends to this case, but to the extent it does not, and Mr. Gould can
pursue a § 501 claim for breach of fiduciary duty on his own without an attorney, the Court turns
to the merits of Mr. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File a Verified Complaint under 29 U.S.C.
§ 501(b).
B. Prerequisites for Filing Suit under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b)
Section 501 of the LMRDA creates a federal cause of action for individual union
members to sue on behalf of the union if a union officer has violated his or her fiduciary duties to
the labor organization and its members. 29 U.S.C. § 501(b). Under § 501(a), fiduciary duties

are broadly defined, and in an attempt to balance the interests of union members with protecting
union officers from unjust harassment, the statute provides that certain conditions must be met
before a union member may proceed with a claim under § 501(b). Gould ex rel. of St. Louis -
Kansas City Carpenters Reg’l Council, 1 F.4th at 589 (citing Hoffman v. Kramer, 362 F.3d 308,
314 (5th Cir. 2004); and Coleman v. Bhd. of Ry. & S. S. Clerks, Freight Handlers, Exp. &
Station Emp., 340 F.2d 206, 208 (2d Cir. 1965)).
To proceed on an action under § 501(b), the union member must obtain, upon verified
application, leave of court for good cause shown. “No [ ] proceeding shall be brought except

11
upon leave of the court obtained upon verified application and for good cause shown [ ].” 29
U.S.C. § 501(b). Additionally, the union member must have requested that the union act in
response to the breach of fiduciary duties. And if “the labor organization or its governing board
or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate
relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so . . . , [the] member may sue such

officer, agent, shop steward, or representative in any district court of the United States [ ] to
recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor
organization.” Id. Accordingly, to pursue a § 501(b) claim, not only must the member obtain
leave of court for good cause shown, but the member must also show that he or she requested
that the union take action in response to the alleged breach of fiduciary duties, and the union
refused to respond within a reasonable amount of time. All of these prerequisites must be met
for Mr. Gould to pursue a § 501 claim. See Gould ex rel. of St. Louis - Kansas City Carpenters
Reg’l Council, 1 F.4th at 589 (citing Horner v. Ferron, 362 F.2d 224, 231 (9th Cir. 1966)).
C. Mr. Gould Has Not Met the § 501(b) Prerequisites

Mr. Gould asserts that he has made a number of demands on Mr. McCarron to take action
against misconduct occurring at STLKCCRC. In proposed Verified Complaint, Mr. Gould states
that on October 3, 2021, he sent a letter to Mr. McCarron bringing a number of violations by
officers at STLKCCRC to the General President’s attention. Mr. Gould’s alleges that his letter
contained the following list of illegal conduct at STLKCCRC:
(1) paying to fly spouses and guests to conventions and conferences; (2) paying
expenses for spouses and guests at conventions and conferences; (3) paying for
unlimited alcohol purchases at conventions and conferences; (4) paying for
nonbusiness-related meals, alcohol, concerts, musicals, sporting events,
clothing, spa treatments, golf, and incidentals; (5) paying for and granting
reimbursements to STLKCCRC employees via “petty cash” that did not meet

12
LMRDA reporting requirements; (6) increasing salaries via an illegal vehicle
policy that served to fraudulently inflate the UBC pension of STLKCCRC
members; (7) increasing Mr. Bond’s salary by approximately $85,000 in May
2017 by tricking or coercing STLKCCRC delegates into approving the increase;
(8) income tax evasion by not reporting nonbusiness-related perks/benefits as
income on employees’ W-2s; and (9) receipts lacking proper documentation as
required by STLKCCRC policy and the LMRDA.

(ECF No. 1 at 15). Many of the listed violations track the allegations of malfeasance in Mr.
Gould’s Wrongful Termination Lawsuit and his Initial § 501 Action.
Mr. Gould asserts that in his letter, he “demanded Mr. McCarron secure a forensic
accounting and recover damages on behalf of the [STLKCCRC] and UBC.” (ECF No. 1 at 2).
More specifically, Mr. Gould alleges that he demanded Mr. McCarron take the following action:
[That] Mr. McCarron [ ] sue Mr. Bond to recover damages, secure forensic
accounting of [STLKCCRC] financials under Mr. Bond's leadership, show rank-
and-file members audit reports and communications and documents used to
produc[e] audits, cease the merger of the [STLKCCRC] into Chicago, declare an
official Trusteeship of the [STLKCCRC] under the conditions of the UBC
constitution and the LMRDA, retain all [STLKCCRC] records, prefer internal
union charges against Mr. Bond, report any illegal activity to proper agencies,
hold other [STLKCCRC] Executive Board members and employees responsible
for any violations of the UBC constitution or laws they may have broken, allow
Mr. Gould to assist and witness any forensic audits, commission a third-party
investigation into the years long effort by Mr. Nelson, Mr. Bond, and professional
service providers to coverup fraud.

(Id. at 13).6 Mr. Gould asserts Mr. McCarron failed to respond to his letter by November 5,
2021. (ECF No. 3 at 4).
The UBC admits in its opposition that Mr. McCarron did receive correspondence from
Mr. Gould dated October 3, 2021, in which Mr. Gould demanded that the UBC, Mr. McCarron,
Mid-America Council, and the EST of Mid-America Council take action to investigate and

6Mr. Gould indicates that a copy of the letter was attached to his proposed Verified
Complaint as an exhibit. A copy of the October 3, 2021 letter, however, was not included in any
of his filings for the Court.

13
remediate acts of misappropriation committed by Messrs. Nelson and Bond at the STLKCCRC.
According to the UBC, Mr. Gould also demanded that the UBC cease the “merger” between
STLKCCRC and the Chicago Council. (ECF No. 11, Ex. 9 at 1).
The UBC asserts that on January 11, 2022, it responded to Mr. Gould’s demand letter.
According to the UBC, it denied Mr. Gould’s request that the merger between the regional

councils cease. In its response, the UBC noted that Mr. Gould had failed to appeal the merger to
the UBC General Executive Board as required by Section 6-A of the UBC Constitution. (ECF
No. 11 at 11). The UBC further states that Mr. Gould’s request that the dissolved STLKCCRC
be placed under trusteeship was also denied. (Id.). “Finally, [Mr.] Gould was advised that UBC
attorneys would consider meeting with him to discuss relevant, cognizable issues that [Mr.]
Gould may have. [Mr.] Gould appears to have since accepted this invitation, and arrangements
for a discussion are being contemplated. (Id.) (quotations omitted).
In the meantime, the UBC asserts that action has been taken in response to allegations of
malfeasance at STLKCCRC, which “effectively respond to Mr. Gould’s demands.” (Id.)

According to the UBC, Mr. McCarron directed that there be an examination of STLKCCRC’s
books by a certified public accountant (“CPA”). The UBC engaged the services of Terrence
Mooney, CPA, to conduct a comprehensive audit of STLKCCRC’s books and records from
August 1, 2018, through September 27, 2021, a fact which Mr. Gould does not dispute.7 On
October 27, 2021, Terrence Mooney presented a report of his findings to the UBC, which

7While not alleging that the audit and accounting were a sham, as he did in his Initial
§ 501 Action, Mr. Gould does state that he has “little faith in the investigation and purported
review of [STLKCCRC] records by Mr. Mooney.” (ECF No. 1 at 16). In support of his opinion,
Mr. Gould alleges that “Mr. Mooney's office serves as the registered address for UBC owned
Jobsite Steel. Jobsite Steel has been subpoenaed as part of a federal investigation into the UBC
under Mr. McCarron's leadership.” (Id.).

14
uncovered several expenses incurred by STLKCCRC that were not authorized. As a result of
this investigation, as well as an investigation later conducted by the Mid-America Council, the
UBC and Mr. McCarron took action against Mr. Bond.
First, UBC states that on March 2, 2022, the UBC brought internal union charges against
Mr. Bond seeking reimbursement for improper and unauthorized expenditures. The charges also

sought expulsion of Mr. Bond as a member of the UBC. According to the UBC, these internal
charges – which allege Mr. Bond inappropriately provided himself a salary increase and used
STLKCCRC resources to make personal expenditures – are precisely what Mr. Gould demanded
in his October 3, 2021 letter, and Mr. Gould has not disputed this fact.
Second, on March 10, 2022, a § 501 action was initiated by the Mid-America Council
against Mr. Bond seeking reimbursement for unauthorized expenditures at STLKCCRC. As
discussed above, the Mid-America § 501 Action seeks over $4 million in damages against Mr.
Bond and others and remains pending in this district. According to the UBC, Mr. Gould
expressly demanded that a § 501 action be brought against Mr. Bond, which is what the Mid-

America § 501 Action is. The UBC further asserts that investigations into the STLKCCRC and
Mr. Bond’s conduct remain ongoing with additional action being contemplated.
In light of the foregoing, the Court finds that Mr. Gould has failed to meet a § 501(b)
statutory prerequisite in that he has not shown that after receiving his demand in October 2021,
the UBC or its officers “refuse[d] or fail[ed] to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting
or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time.” 29 U.S.C. § 501(b).
Although Mr. Gould did not file a reply memorandum and respond to the assertions in
UBC’s Memorandum in Opposition to Verified Application for Leave to File Verified Complaint

15
or the documents attached thereto, it appears to be undisputed that the UBC did conduct an
accounting of STLKCCRC’s records as Mr. Gould requested. In fact, the investigation was
being conducted at the time Mr. Gould sent his letter to Mr. McCarron. Moreover, it appears to
be undisputed that the UBC filed internal charges against Mr. Bond seeking reimbursement for
improper and unauthorized expenditures, in addition to his expulsion from the union. Again, Mr.

Gould made this request in his October 3, 2021 letter. And finally, it is undisputed that the Mid-
America Council filed suit against Mr. Bond and others after Mr. Gould made his request. Mr.
Gould’s assertion that the UBC, General Executive Board, and Mr. McCarron have refused
and/or failed to sue or recover damages or secure a forensic accounting by a verified independent
CPA or firm, or to seek appropriate relief within a reasonable time after his request was made on
October 3, 2021, is not supported by the record. Mr. Gould has not shown that the union failed
or refused to make a legitimate accounting, sue or recover damages, or take other appropriate
action against Mr. Bond. As discussed above, Mr. McCarron and the UBC did in fact take
against Mr. Bond, and those actions responded to demands in Mr. Gould’s October 3, 2021

letter. Mr. Gould has not satisfied the condition precedent to bringing a § 501 suit – that the
union failed or refused to act on his demand. Gould ex rel. of St. Louis - Kansas City Carpenters
Reg’l Council, 1 F.4th at 589; Hoffman, 362 F.3d at 314; Coleman, 340 F.2d at 208.
D. Many of Mr. Gould’s Proposed Claims Are Precluded by Collateral Estoppel

As discussed above, Mr. Gould filed his proposed Verified Complaint without the
assistance of counsel, and it is not a model of clarity. It is not entirely clear from his allegations
in proposed Verified Complaint exactly what alleged malfeasance by STLKCCRC officers forms
the basis of his § 501 claims. As discussed above, the allegations in Mr. Gould’s Wrongful

16
Termination Lawsuit, his Initial § 501 Action, and his proposed Verified Complaint overlap
significantly, and it is difficult for the Court to determine which allegations of malfeasance are
background and which Mr. Gould intends to pursue. While the Court declines to go through the
litany of alleged malfeasance line by line, to the extent Mr. Gould is raising allegations of
malfeasance that he raised in his Initial § 501 Action, they are barred by the doctrine of collateral

estoppel.
In Mr. Gould’s Initial § 501 Action, the district court determined that the UBC properly
investigated and addressed Mr. Gould’s allegations of malfeasance at STLKCCRC, a finding
which was affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. Gould ex rel. of St. Louis-Kansas City Carpenters
Reg’l Council, 1 F.4th at 585 (finding “the [regional council] secured an accounting by an
outside auditor that investigated every complaint in [Mr.] Gould’s initial request and concluded
that there had been no wrong-doing by the union.”). In other words, Mr. Gould’s Initial § 501
Action decided the issue as to whether the union failed or refused to take appropriate action in
response to Mr. Gould’s request for an accounting to recover damages. There, the court found

Mr. Gould did not meet a perquisite of § 501(b), because the union appropriately responded to
Mr. Gould’s demand in a timely manner. Id. Because the court in the Initial § 501 Action
decided the issue of whether Mr. Gould had met the prerequisites to bring a § 501(b) with respect
to at least some of his claims of malfeasance, Mr. Gould is precluded from re-litigating the issue
here. Turner v. U.S. Dep't of Just., 815 F.3d 1108, 1113 (8th Cir. 2016) (affirming application of
collateral estoppel to bar subsequent suit by the same plaintiff because determination regarding
subject matter jurisdiction in prior suit involved application of the same legal standard). To the
extent Mr. Gould is attempting to allege § 501(b) claims based on the same malfeasance by

17
union officers that he alleged in his Initial § 501 Action, his claims would be precluded under the
doctrine of collateral estoppel. Riis v. Shaver, 4 F.4th 701, 704 (8th Cir. 2021) (doctrine of
collateral estoppel “bars relitigation of an essential fact or issue involved in the earlier suit.”).
E. Many of Mr. Gould’s Proposed Claims Are Time Barred

Finally, a number of the allegations in Mr. Gould’s proposed Verified Complaint date
back to 2014 or earlier. For example, Mr. Gould alleges the following: he “became aware of
multiple violations and reported his concerns to [STLKCCRC] leaders from 2008 through 2014”;
he “provided ample evidence of financial crimes to Mr. McCarron and the UBC in September of
2014”; “from 2008 through 2014” there were improper reimbursements; he “continued
whistleblowing to his [STLKCCRC] Superiors about violations of multiple federal laws from
2008 until his termination in August of 2014” and provided copies of the same to “the UBC and
Mr. McCarron in 2014; “[f]rom September 2014 through December of 2014, Mr. Gould
continued to provide the UBC, Mr. McCarron, and the UBC representatives with details of
STLKCCRC bosses breaching fiduciary duties ....” (ECF No. 1 at 2, 4-6, 8-9). Again, the

proposed Verified Complaint is not precise, and it is difficult to decipher between background
information and allegations upon which Mr. Gould intends to base his claims. But to the extent
Mr. Gould is attempting to bring claims that accrued prior to March 2, 2017, the UBC argues in
its opposition that any such claim would be time barred. The Court agrees.
There is no statute of limitations in LMRDA, and for § 501 claims, the Court is to apply
the most analogous state statute of limitations. See O'Hara v. Teamsters Union Loc. No. 856,
151 F.3d 1152, 1161 (9th Cir. 1998); Austin v. Trandell, 207 F. Supp. 2d 616, 623 (E.D. Mich.
2002). The UBC urges the Court to apply Missouri’s statute of limitations for claims of breach

18
of fiduciary duty or constructive fraud, which are governed by Missouri’s general five-year
statute of limitations. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 516.120; Klemme v. Best, 941 S.W.2d 493, 497 (Mo.
1997) (en banc). In the absence of a more analogous state law claim, the Court concurs with the
UBC that Missouri’s five-year statute of limitations would apply. See Austin, 207 F. Supp. 2d at
623 (E.D. Mich. 2002) (holding that Michigan’s statute of limitations for breach of fiduciary

duties against corporate officers applies). Thus, any of the § 501 claims Mr. Gould seeks to
bring that accrued before March 1, 2017 – five years prior to the filing of Mr. Gould’s
Application on March 1, 2022 – would be time barred.
III. Conclusion
Mr. Gould seeks leave to file a Verified Complaint under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) against Mr.
McCarron for breach of his fiduciary duties in allowing others to misappropriate STLKCCRC
funds. The Court finds Mr. Gould is precluded from bringing what is essentially a derivative suit
on behalf of STLKCCRC and its members, because he is proceeding without the assistance of
counsel. As a pro se litigant, Mr. Gould may bring claims that are personal to him, but he may

not represent others in federal court.
In the alternative, to the extent Mr. Gould can bring suit on behalf of the STLKCCRC
and its members, Mr. Gould has not met the prerequisites of § 501(b) in that he failed to allege or
show that he demanded that Mr. McCarron or the UBC take action against the alleged
malfeasance, and they failed to do so. The Court further finds that many of the allegations in Mr.
Gould’s proposed Verified Complaint are barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel, as they
are the same allegations that he made in his Initial § 501 Action. Finally, to the extent Mr. Gould
seeks to bring claims that accrued prior to March 1, 2017, any such claim would be barred by the

19
applicable statute of limitations. In sum, Mr. Gould has not met the prerequisites of § 501(b) and
has failed to show good cause to file a Verified Complaint against Mr. McCarron for breach of
his fiduciary duties.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jonathan M. Gould’s Motion for Leave to File
Verified Complaint under 29 U.S.C. § 501(b) is DENIED. (ECF No. 3).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-captioned cause of action is DISMISSED.
The Court will issue a separate Order of Dismissal.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated this_14th day of March, 2023.

20

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10238412. Public record. Not legal advice.