Anglo Canadian Shipping Co. v. United States
| Decision Date | 25 October 1956 |
| Docket Number | No. 15241.,15241. |
| Parties | ANGLO CANADIAN SHIPPING CO., Ltd. et al., Petitioners, v. UNITED STATES of America and Federal Maritime Board, Respondents. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Graham, James & Rolph, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.
Edward D. Ransom, Gen. Counsel, Federal Maritime Bd., Washington, D. C., John T. Halen, Federal Maritime Bd., San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before STEPHENS and POPE, Circuit Judges, and HALBERT, District Judge.
Respondent moved to dismiss the petition which is one filed here pursuant to Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 1034 for the purpose of reviewing an order of the Federal Maritime Board. Under § 1033 of that Title, which is part of Chapter 19(a) enacted December 29, 1950, 64 Stat. 1129, "The venue of any proceeding under this chapter shall be in the judicial circuit wherein is the residence of the party or any of the parties filing the petition for review, or wherein such party or any of such parties has its principal office, or in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia." The motion is based upon respondents' assertion that the named petitioners, some 23 steamship or shipping companies, are either corporations, none of whom are incorporated in any state in this circuit, or partnerships, none of whose partners reside in this circuit.
The report of the Board, whose decision is sought to be reviewed here, discloses that the proceeding which resulted in that report was instituted by the filing of complaints by Mitsui Steamship Co., Ltd., and others, "against the member lines of the Pacific Coast European Conference * * * alleging violations of the Shipping Act, 1916". The operative portion of the Board's order recites: "It is ordered that the Pacific Coast European Conference and its members, as named in Appendix A hereto, cease and desist from effectuating any interpretation of said conference's shippers' rate agreement inconsistent with the interpretation set forth in the report herein." The members named in the appendix referred to in the order and there described as "regular members" of the Conference are the petitioners here.1
It does not appear to be questioned but that the Conference, as such, would be a party aggrieved by the order, and it is admitted that it has its principal office in this circuit. Although an unincorporated association, its capacity to sue or to petition for review of an administrative order can hardly be questioned. Cf. Rule 17(b) F.R.C.P., 28 U.S.C.A., and Title 5 U.S.C.A. § 1001(b).
Petitioners assert that since all of the named regular members of the Conference referred to in the Board's order have filed the petition here, in substance the Conference itself is a petitioner as well as its members. However, upon argument of the motion here, counsel for the petitioners requested leave to amend their petition by inserting after the names of the petitioning steamship or shipping companies, the name of "Pacific Coast European Conference" so that the Conference would be expressly named as one of the petitioners. The motion for leave to amend the petition is granted.
Following submission of this matter counsel for the Board have filed a memorandum asserting that the motion...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gentry v. Smith, 72-2903.
...13 Mullaney v. Anderson, 1952, 342 U.S. 415, 72 S.Ct. 428, 96 L.Ed. 458 (party added by Supreme Court); Anglo Canadian Shipping Co., Ltd. v. United States, 9 Cir. 1956, 238 F.2d 18 (party added by Court of 14 Rule 42(a) provides: Consolidation; Separate Trials a. Consolidation. When actions......
-
Spangler v. Pasadena City Bd. of Ed.
...358, 15 L.Ed.2d 265 (1965); Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 417, 72 S.Ct. 428, 96 L.Ed. 458 (1951); Anglo Canadian Shipping Co. v. United States, 238 F.2d 18, 19 (9th Cir. 1956). But the circumstances in this case are different. Here, the United States, currently the only proper plainti......
-
Carle v. Earth Stove, Inc.
...342 U.S. 415, 417, 72 S.Ct. 428, 430, 96 L.Ed. 458 (1952); Gentry v. Smith, 487 F.2d 571 (5th Cir.1973); Anglo Canadian Shipping Co. v. United States, 238 F.2d 18, 19 (9th Cir.1956); Reichenberg v. Nelson, 310 F.Supp. 248, 251 (Neb.1970). Since CR 21 is identical to and patterned from the f......
-
Blakely v. Lisac
...of parties, the plaintiffs cite Mullaney v. Anderson, 342 U.S. 415, 72 S.Ct. 428, 96 L.Ed. 458 (1952) and Anglo-Canadian Shipping Co. v. United States, 238 F.2d 18 (9th Cir. 1956). In Mullaney the real party in interest was substituted for his agent. In permitting this action, the court sta......