
    Ricardo APOLINARIO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED HEALTHCARE WORKERS-WEST, Service Employees International, CTW, CLC; Seton Medical Center; and Does one through twenty five, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 14-17109
    United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
    Submitted October 20, 2016  San Francisco, California
    Filed October 24, 2016
    Curtis G. Oler, Esquire, Law Offices of Curtis G. Oler, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
    Manuel A Boigues, Bruce A. Harland, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, for Defendant-Appellee United Healthcare Workers-West, Service Employees International Union, CTW, CLC.
    Patricia DeSantis, Los Angeles, CA, An Nguyen Ruda, San Francisco, CA, Jeffer Mangels Butler & Mitchell LLP, for Defendant-Appellee Seton Medical Center.
    Before: GRABER and MURGUIA, Circuit Judges, and COLLINS, Chief District Judge.
    
      
      The panel unanimously concludes that this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
    
    
      
       The Honorable Raner C, Collins, Chief United States District Judge for the District of Arizona, sitting by designation.
    
   MEMORANDUM

Plaintiff Ricardo Apolinario appeals from two district court order's dismissing his claims against his former employer, Seton Medical Center (“Seton”) and labor union, United Healthcare Workers-West Service Employees International Union (“the Union”). The first order granted the Union’s motion to dismiss Apolinario’s claim for a breach of the duty of fair representation under the National Labor Relations Act. The second order granted Seton’s motion for judgment on the pleadings concerning his claims brought under the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947. We review dismissals under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) and 12(c) de novo. See Lyon v. Chase Bank USA, 656 F.3d 877, 883 (9th Cir. 2011) (judgment on the pleadings); Knievel v. ESPN, 393 F.3d 1068, 1072 (9th Cir. 2005) (motions to dismiss). We now affirm.

To prevail against either Seton or the Union, Apolinario has the burden to demonstrate the Union breached its duty of fair representation. Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 570-71, 96 S.Ct. 1048, 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976); see also United Parcel Serv., Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U.S. 56, 62, 101 S.Ct. 1559, 67 L.Ed.2d 732 (1981). A union breaches its duty of fan-representation to an employee by engaging in conduct that was “arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith.” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 190, 87 S.Ct. 903, 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967). Whether to pursue a grievance is typically a decision in which unions “retain wide discretion to act in what they perceive to be their members’ best interests.” Peterson v. Kennedy, 771 F.2d 1244, 1253 (9th Cir. 1985). Apolinario’s operative complaint does not allege enough specific facts to support a reasonable inference that the Union breached its duty of fair representation in handling his grievance, and mostly includes “threadbare recitals of a cause of action’s elements, supported by mere con-clusory statements.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009). Notably, Apolinario does not allege specific facts (1) suggesting any motive the Union might have had for discriminating against him or acting in bad faith, (2) showing that similarly situated employees were treated differently by the Union, or (3) giving context to or explaining his bare allegation. Because he failed to “provide more[,]” his claims must fail. Men-diondo v. Centinela Hosp. Med. Ctr., 521 F.3d 1097, 1104 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED. 
      
       This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
     