780 Fed.Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2019), 17-55477, Surf City Steel, Inc. v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union

Docket Nº:17-55477, 17-55535, 17-55586
Citation:780 Fed.Appx. 467
Party Name:SURF CITY STEEL, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; et al., Defendants-Appellees. and United Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Plaintiff, Surf City Steel, Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees and United Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Plaintiff, v. International Longshore and Warehouse Union; et al., Defendants-...
Attorney:David A. Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, Paul Hetterman, Attorney, Hartnett Gladney Hetterman, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, Lisl R. Soto, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants Eleanor I. Morton, Esquire, Attorney, Lindsay Rose Nicholas, Attorney, Le...
Judge Panel:Before: WATFORD and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS, District Judge.
Case Date:July 05, 2019
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 467

780 Fed.Appx. 467 (9th Cir. 2019)

SURF CITY STEEL, INC.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellants

and

United Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Surf City Steel, Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees

and

United Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.

International Longshore and Warehouse Union; et al., Defendants-Appellants,

and

Pacific Maritime Association, Defendant.

Surf City Steel, Inc.; et al., Plaintiffs-Appellees

and

United Riggers & Erectors, Inc., Plaintiff,

v.

Pacific Maritime Association, Defendant-Appellant

and

International Longshore and Warehouse Union; et al., Defendants.

Nos. 17-55477, 17-55535, 17-55586

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

July 5, 2019

Argued and Submitted October 12, 2018 Pasadena, California

Editorial Note:

Governing the citation to unpublished opinions please refer to federal rules of appellate procedure rule 32.1. See also U.S.Ct. of App. 9th Cir. Rule 36-3.

Page 468

[Copyrighted Material Omitted]

Page 469

David A. Rosenfeld, Weinberg Roger & Rosenfeld, Alameda, CA, Paul Hetterman, Attorney, Hartnett Gladney Hetterman, L.L.C., St. Louis, MO, Lisl R. Soto, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs-Appellants

Eleanor I. Morton, Esquire, Attorney, Lindsay Rose Nicholas, Attorney, Leonard Carder, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Robert S. Remar, Attorney, Law Office of Robert Remar, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellees International Longshore and Warehouse Union, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 10, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 8, International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 19

Gillian B. Goldberg, Steven Holguin, SR Holguin, PC, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant-Appellee International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Local 13

Brian Ming Hom, Esquire, Clifford Sethness, Esquire, Morgan, Lewis & Bockius LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Thomas M. Peterson, Attorney, Kent Michael Roger, Attorney, Morgan Lewis & Bockius LLP, San Francisco, CA, for Defendant-Appellee Pacific Maritime Association

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Beverly Reid O’Connell, District Judge, Presiding, D.C. No. 2:14-cv-05604-BRO-SS

Before: WATFORD and OWENS, Circuit Judges, and ZIPPS,[*] District Judge.

Page 470

MEMORANDUM[**]

This appeal pertains to work assignment provisions in Sections 1.7, 1.71, and 1.72 of the Pacific Coast Longshore and Clerk’s Agreement ("the CBA"), entered into by Appellees Pacific Maritime Association ("PMA")1 and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union ("ILWU").2 Appellants— Surf City Steel, Inc. and Sarens, USA, Inc. (collectively "Contractors") and the International Association of Bridge, Structural, Ornamental and Reinforcing Iron Workers ("Iron Workers Union")3 — brought suit alleging that the CBA violated antitrust and labor laws, because it prevented them from competing for and performing certain crane work at West Coast ports. Iron Workers Union also alleged ILWU’s conduct breached the AFL-CIO Constitution.

The district court was presented with multiple challenges to Appellants’ claims and eventually dismissed all claims.4 Appellants appeal those dismissals. Appellees contend the dismissals should be upheld, and argue on cross-appeal that the district court erred by rejecting an additional basis for dismissing the antitrust claims. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.5

1. The district court dismissed the Appellant Contractors’ labor law claims, concluding that the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") failed to allege sufficiently and plausibly that Appellee ILWU engaged in prohibited secondary activity. Specifically, the court concluded the Appellants failed to allege any facts from which the court could infer that the purpose of the arbitration proceedings was to pressure the contractors not to allow non-ILWU signatories to work or bid on their projects. We agree with the district court’s reasoning and affirm.

Appellant Contractors’ labor law claims are predicated upon a violation of sections

Page 471

8(b)(4)(ii)(A) & (B) of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(ii)(A) & (B). Section 8(b)(4) prohibits only activities that have a secondary, as opposed to a primary purpose. Nat’l Woodwork Mfrs. Ass’n v. NLRB, 386 U.S. 612, 624-39, 87 S.Ct. 1250, 18 L.Ed.2d 357...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP