Cal. St. Coun. of Car. v. Associated Gen. Con. of Cal., Inc., No. C-75-0260 RFP.

CourtUnited States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. Northern District of California
Citation404 F. Supp. 1067
Docket NumberNo. C-75-0260 RFP.
Decision Date10 September 1975
PartiesCALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants.

404 F. Supp. 1067

CALIFORNIA STATE COUNCIL OF CARPENTERS, etc., et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
ASSOCIATED GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF CALIFORNIA, INC., et al., Defendants.

No. C-75-0260 RFP.

United States District Court, N. D. California.

August 4, 1975.

Order September 10, 1975.


404 F. Supp. 1068

Victor J. Van Bourg, David A. Rosenfeld, Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg, Williams & Roger, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs California State Council of Carpenters, etc., and others.

James P. Watson, Cox, Castle, Nicholson & Weekes, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Associated Gen. Contractors of California, Inc.

Gordon Johnson, Edward J. Ruff, Fielding H. Lane, and William F. Hoefs, Thelen, Marrin, Johnson & Bridges, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Perini Corp. and Dillingham Corp. of San Francisco.

Sherwood M. Sullivan, Stephen H. Pettigrew, Hopkins & Carley, San Jose, Cal., for defendants Herwig of California, Inc., Nicholson-Brown, Inc. and Barnhardt Const. Co.

Phillip A. Cooke, Steel & Arostequi, Islip, Cooke & Guthrie, Marysville, Cal., for defendant Baldwin Contracting Co., Inc.

Kurt W. Melchior, J. Mark Montobbio, Severson, Werson, Berke & Melchior, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant The Harold E. Shugart Co., Inc.

William F. McCabe, Nicholas B. Waranoff, Jacobs, Sills & Coblentz, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant The Taubman Co., Inc.

Bryant K. Zimmerman, South San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Guy F. Atkinson Co.

William H. Bryant, Crist, Crist, Griffiths, Bryant & Schulz, Palo Alto, Cal., for defendant Peck & Hiller.

Richard E. Brandt, McDonough, Holland, Schwartz & Allen, Sacramento, Cal., for defendants Continental Heller Corp. and A. Teichert & Son, Inc.

James C. Paras, Raymond L. Wheeler, Morrison & Foerster, San Francisco, Cal., for Dinwiddie Const. Co.

Howard Hassard, John I. Jefsen and A. Robert Singer, Hassard, Bonnington, Rogers & Huber, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Swinerton & Walberg.

Gerard Wagstaffe, Wagstaffe, Daba & Hulse, Redwood City, Cal., for defendant Johnson & Mape Const. Co.

Larry D. Dingus, Peter C. Haley, Knect, Dingus & Boring, San Francisco, Cal., for defendants Welch Const., Inc. and Dickman Const. Inc.

John B. Clark, James E. Harrington, Jr., Pettit, Evers & Martin, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Carl W. Olson & Sons Co.

Watson, Tedesco, Sanguinetti & Alphonse, San Jose, Cal., for defendant Dan Caputo Co.

Dennis C. Hession, San Mateo, Cal., Ropers, Majeski, Kohn, Bentley & Wagner, Redwood City, Cal., Eustice, Feeley, Maguire & Sines, Los Altos, Cal., Arthur M. Traugh, Sacramento, Cal., Harlow P. Rothert, Hancock, Rothert & Bunshoft, San Francisco, Cal., for defendant Howard J. White, Inc.

404 F. Supp. 1069

Miller, Morton, Caillat & Nevis, San Jose, Cal., for Lew Jones Const. Co.

Arthur P. Greenfield, Snell & Wilmer, Phoenix, Ariz., for defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

PECKHAM, District Judge.

Motions to dismiss, to strike, for more definite statements, or to stay by various of the defendants were submitted to the court after lengthy oral argument on May 5, 1975. While the case was under submission, the Supreme Court decided the case of Connell Construction Company v. Plumbers and Steamfitters Local Union No. 100 et al., 421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975) concerning the application of federal and state antitrust laws in the area of labor relations. In order to permit the parties to comment on the applicability of Connell to this case, on June 24, 1975 the court set a hearing for July 18, 1975 for further argument on the motions previously submitted to the court. The court's order of June 24, 1975 also granted plaintiffs' then pending motion to file a first amended complaint, deemed the pending motions to dismiss the complaint applicable to the first amended complaint, extended the time of all defendants for filing responsive pleadings until ten days after the filing of an order disposing of the pending motions to dismiss, and granted all parties leave to file additional arguments regarding the motion to dismiss as applied to the first amended complaint.

Since the issuance of the court's most recent order, plaintiffs filed on July 9, 1975 a reply memorandum of points and authorities and on July 10, 1975, defendant Associated General Contractors filed a supplemental memorandum in support of its motion to dismiss. On July 16, 1975, the court sent a telegram to counsel for all parties indicating that the pending motions to dismiss would be submitted on July 18, 1975 on the papers filed, without oral argument as previously scheduled.

Plaintiffs sue defendants in a five-count complaint alleging a rather vague, general conspiracy to weaken and destroy the plaintiff unions by hiring non-union persons and various other alleged acts of sabotage. The complaints appear typical of disputes a union might have with an employer, which in the normal course are either presented to the National Labor Relations Board for resolution of charges that defendants have engaged in unfair labor practices or, if the acts arguably constitute violations of the collective bargaining agreements, are presented through the contract grievance machinery and ultimately to an arbitration panel.

Defendants have responded with motions to dismiss with respect to each of plaintiffs' claims. Alternatively, if the court does not dismiss, defendants seek to have the court strike certain portions of the complaint and compel more definite statements by plaintiffs of the nature of their claim.

The facts set out in plaintiffs' complaint are alleged to constitute five causes of action, upon which plaintiffs claim damages of $775,000,000.

The first cause of action alleges violations of the federal antitrust laws. Defendants cite numerous cases in support of the proposition that disputes between unions and employers do not normally give rise to violations of the antitrust laws. While an agreement between a union and an employer to conspire in some respect may give rise to an antitrust violation, the normal labor dispute between union and employer does not. See, e.g., U.M.W. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 657, 662, 85 S.Ct. 1585, 14 L.Ed.2d 626 (1965); Allen Bradley Co. v. IBEW Local 3, 325 U.S. 797, 806-11, 65 S.Ct. 1533, 89 L.Ed. 1939 (1945); Prepmore Apparel, Inc. v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, 431 F.2d 1004 (5th Cir.), rehearing and rehearing en banc denied (1970); Kennedy v. Long Island Railroad Co., 319 F.2d 366 (2nd Cir. 1963). The recently decided Connell case, cited supra,

404 F. Supp. 1070
raised the question of a union's exemption from suit under the antitrust laws. The discussion of the issue by the court, 421 U.S...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1981
    ...in the normal type of labor dispute." California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067, 1070 (N.D.Cal.1975). We find that the district court erred in dismissing appellants' claim for relief under the Sherman Act. As to appellants......
  • C & W CONST. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Civ. No. 83-0710.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • June 7, 1988
    ...ambit of Connell. The Ninth Circuit, in California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067 (N.D.Cal.) (Peckam, J.), rev'd on other grounds, 648 F.2d 527, 540 (9th Cir.1980), reversed, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (19......
  • Associated General Contractors of California, Inc v. California State Council of Carpenters, No. 81-334
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1983
    ...421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), the District Court dismissed the complaint, including the federal antitrust claim. 404 F.Supp. 1067 (ND Cal.1975).6 The court observed that the complaint alleged "a rather vague, general conspiracy," and that the allegations "appear typica......
  • CARPENTERS LOCAL, ETC. v. Pratt-Farmsworth, Civ. A. No. 80-1570.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • April 2, 1981
    ...Company, 255 F.Supp. 142 (W.D.Pa. 1966); California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067 (N.D.Cal. 1975); National Post Office Mail Handlers v. U.S. Postal Service, 594 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. II. The ERISA Allegations Any contributi......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., AFL-CIO
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (9th Circuit)
    • May 22, 1981
    ...in the normal type of labor dispute." California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067, 1070 (N.D.Cal.1975). We find that the district court erred in dismissing appellants' claim for relief under the Sherman Act. As to appellants......
  • C & W CONST. v. Brotherhood of Carpenters & Joiners, Civ. No. 83-0710.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 9th Circuit. United States District Court (Hawaii)
    • June 7, 1988
    ...ambit of Connell. The Ninth Circuit, in California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067 (N.D.Cal.) (Peckam, J.), rev'd on other grounds, 648 F.2d 527, 540 (9th Cir.1980), reversed, 459 U.S. 519, 103 S.Ct. 897, 74 L.Ed.2d 723 (19......
  • Associated General Contractors of California, Inc v. California State Council of Carpenters, No. 81-334
    • United States
    • United States Supreme Court
    • February 22, 1983
    ...421 U.S. 616, 95 S.Ct. 1830, 44 L.Ed.2d 418 (1975), the District Court dismissed the complaint, including the federal antitrust claim. 404 F.Supp. 1067 (ND Cal.1975).6 The court observed that the complaint alleged "a rather vague, general conspiracy," and that the allegations "appear typica......
  • CARPENTERS LOCAL, ETC. v. Pratt-Farmsworth, Civ. A. No. 80-1570.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 5th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Louisiana)
    • April 2, 1981
    ...Company, 255 F.Supp. 142 (W.D.Pa. 1966); California State Council of Carpenters v. Associated General Contractors of California, Inc., 404 F.Supp. 1067 (N.D.Cal. 1975); National Post Office Mail Handlers v. U.S. Postal Service, 594 F.2d 988 (4th Cir. II. The ERISA Allegations Any contributi......
  • 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