Paradise Valley Investigation and Patrol Services, Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Court, Dist. of Arizona

Decision Date14 August 1975
Docket NumberNo. 75-1584,75-1584
Citation521 F.2d 1342
Parties22 Wage & Hour Cas. (BN 458, 77 Lab.Cas. P 33,286 PARADISE VALLEY INVESTIGATION AND PATROL SERVICES, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, Respondent, John T. DUNLOP, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Real Party in Interest.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Louis G. Jekel (argued), Scottsdale, Ariz., for petitioner.

Ann Galzani, Atty. (argued), U.S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., for respondent.

Before KILKENNY, CHOY, and GOODWIN, Circuit Judges.

ALFRED T. GOODWIN, Circuit Judge:

Paradise Valley Investigation and Patrol Services, Inc., an employer defending an action brought by the Secretary of Labor, seeks by way of mandamus in this court to compel the district court to grant a trial by jury. The writ is denied.

The Secretary of Labor is proceeding against Paradise Valley under § 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 217. 1 The Secretary seeks to enjoin noncompliance with the overtime pay provisions of 29 U.S.C. § 207. Specifically, the Secretary prays for mandatory relief compelling Paradise to (1) disgorge illegally withheld overtime wages and (2) refrain from violating the Act's overtime provisions in the future.

In the district court, Paradise made a timely demand for a jury trial. The Secretary, asserting that the action was wholly equitable, moved successfully to strike the jury demand.

Paradise asserts that the back-pay demand is an action at law, and, consequently, that a jury is required under the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

In Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901 (5th Cir. 1965), the Fifth Circuit held that the Secretary's § 17 action to enjoin future overtime violations and to compel employers to disburse illegally-held back pay was equitable, and denied the employers a jury trial on the back-pay issue. The purpose of § 17's injunction restraining the withholding of back wages "is not to collect a debt owed by an employer to his employee but to correct a continuing offense against the public interest * * *." 340 F.2d at 904.

This circuit has recognized that § 17's back-pay remedy is intended "to vindicate a public, rather than a private, right, and that the withholding of money due is considered a 'continuing public offense.' Wirtz v. Jones, * * *." Wirtz v. Malthor, 391 F.2d 1, 3 (9th Cir. 1968). See also Brennan v. Saghatelian, 514 F.2d 619 (9th Cir. 1975). In Saghatelian, the Secretary sought, Inter alia, to enjoin the continued withholding of previously earned overtime pay. The court labeled § 17's back-pay remedy a "restitutionary injunction", 514 F.2d at 621, and stated that Congress provided this relief "through an action in equity". 514 F.2d at 622. Cf. Mitchell v. DeMario Jewelry, 361 U.S. 288, 290-292, 80 S.Ct. 332, 4 L.Ed.2d 323 (1960); Albemarle Paper v. Moody, --- U.S. --- at ---, 95 S.Ct. 2362, 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975).

In an action at law for back wages under § 16 of the Act, there is a traditional array of parties and issues. The unpaid workman is demanding a money judgment, and a jury is furnished upon request as a matter of course. See Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d at 904. In some situations, the workman may be perfectly happy with the existing arrangement and may refuse to sue for back pay. The congressional policy behind the Act would be frustrated unless the public official charged with its enforcement could seek equitable relief.

We agree with the Fifth Circuit that a § 17 case is essentially a suit in equity and not...

To continue reading

Request your trial
12 cases
  • Brock v. Superior Care, Inc., 407
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • 5 Abril 1988
    ...trial. See, e.g., In re Don Hamilton Oil Co., 783 F.2d 151 (8th Cir.1986); Paradise Valley Investigation and Patrol Services, Inc. v. United States District Court, District of Arizona, 521 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1975); Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.1965); Marshall v. Kreten Char-Broil, ......
  • Morelock v. NCR Corp., s. 75-2220
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • 20 Diciembre 1976
    ...have been held to be equitable in nature and exclusively within the province of the court. E.g. Paradise Valley Investigation and Patrol Services, Inc. v. Dunlop, 521 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir. 1976); Geyer Broadcasting Co. v. Holder, 14 Fed.Rules Serv.2d 621 (7th Cir. 1970); Sullivan v. Wirtz, 35......
  • E.E.O.C. v. Corry Jamestown Corp., 82-5706
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
    • 8 Agosto 1983
    ...Quinn v. Bowmar Pub. Co., 445 F.Supp. 780 (D.Md.1978), but not equitable claims, Paradise Valley Investigation and Patrol Services, Inc. v. United States District Court, 521 F.2d 1342 (9th Cir.1975); Wirtz v. Jones, 340 F.2d 901 (5th Cir.1965); Hodgson v. Stewart In-Fra-Red Commissary, Inc.......
  • Altman v. Stevens Fashion Fabrics, C-77-1396-CBR.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
    • 5 Diciembre 1977
    ...despite some equitable characteristics, can fairly be described as legal. See Paradise Valley Investigation & Patrol Services, Inc. v. United States District Court, 521 F.2d 1342, 1343 (9 Cir. 1975) (dictum); Wirtz v. Jones, supra, 340 F.2d at 904 (private actions for backpay under FLSA "ar......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT