788 F.2d 535 (9th Cir. 1986), 85-1771, Butcher's Union Local No. 498, United Food and Commercial Workers v. SDC Inv., Inc.
|Citation:||788 F.2d 535|
|Party Name:||RICO Bus.Disp.Guide 6243 BUTCHER'S UNION LOCAL NO. 498, UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS; the United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, AFL-CIO; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 26, AFL-CIO; United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Local 7; James Conley, et al., and Moses Esquivel, et al.,|
|Case Date:||April 23, 1986|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit|
Argued and Submitted Dec. 13, 1985.
David Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger, & Rosenfeld, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs-appellants.
William B. Shubb, Diepenbrock, Wulff, Plant & Hannegan, Sacramento, Cal., Charles Sykes, Terry E. Schraeder, Bruckner & Sykes, Houston, Tex., for defendants-appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.
Before DUNIWAY and TANG, Circuit Judges, and HUPP, [*] District judge.
DUNIWAY, Circuit Judge:
The appellants are four labor unions and one individual union member. On April 4, 1983, they brought this civil action under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act ("RICO"), 18 U.S.C. Secs. 1961-1968, in the district court for the Eastern District of California. The complaint charged eighteen defendants with "union-busting" activities. The defendants included four employers and an officer/manager of each, several attorneys, and agents of the National Maritime Union ("NMU"). Appellees here are two of the defendant employers, Denver Lamb and Montfort of Colorado, and their officers.
The complaint charged that on four occasions defendant lawyers arranged for the recognition of NMU, an alleged "sham" union, in order to prevent the appellant Unions from organizing the defendant employers' workers. The Unions allege that this created two levels of racketeering activity: (1) a nationwide conspiracy created and carried out by defendant lawyers with the four separate employers; and (2) four individual conspiracies between the defendant lawyers, a defendant employer, and NMU agents. The Unions concede that the defendant employers had no connection with each other beyond the use of the same lawyers and that each individual conspiracy was largely independent.
Only one of the four defendant employers, SDC Investment, has its principal place of business in California. The other three, Denver Lamb, Montfort, and Eastern Market Beef Processing Corporation, operate out of Denver, Colorado; Grand Island, Nebraska; and Detroit, Michigan, respectively. None of the three corporations was formed under California law. All of these nonresident employers filed motions for dismissal alleging lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. Eastern Market is no longer in the case.
The Unions responded with their First Amended Complaint, but they did not make specific allegations regarding personal jurisdiction over the nonresident employers. Their justification for venue in the Eastern District of California included the statement that
the claim arose in this district, and/or each defendant resides, is found, has an agent and/or transacts his affairs in this district. To the extent venue is not established under 28 U.S.C. sections 1391, 1392 or 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(a), venue would be appropriate as to the remaining defendants in the interests of justice under 18 U.S.C. Section 1965(b).
Beyond this general assertion, the Amended Complaint did not make any reference to Denver Lamb's or Montfort's contacts with the forum state, California.
At a status conference, the Unions sought discovery in order to support their jurisdictional allegations. The district court denied their motion. Instead, it asked for additional memoranda on the question of the court's personal jurisdiction over several defendants, including Denver Lamb and Montfort.
In the two memoranda of points and authorities the Unions submitted, they argued that the court's personal jurisdiction and venue concerns were met by 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1965(b). It reads:
In any action under section 1964 of this chapter [RICO] in any...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP