Grand Central Aircraft Co. v. Allen, 32541.
| Decision Date | 03 August 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 32541.,32541. |
| Citation | 114 F. Supp. 389 |
| Parties | GRAND CENTRAL AIRCRAFT CO. v. ALLEN et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Latham & Watkins and R. W. Lund, Los Angeles, Cal., Littler, Lauritzen & Mendelson and Robert Littler, San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff.
Lloyd H. Burke, U. S. Atty., Charles Elmer Collett, George A. Blackstone, Asst. U. S. Attys., Ernest A. Norback, Twelfth Region Counsel, Wage Stabilization Board, Joseph I. Nachman, Chief of Rulings and Opinions Branch, Twelfth Region Wage Stabilization Board, San Francisco, Cal., and Isaac Groner, Chief Counsel for Wage Stabilization Committee, Washington, D. C., for defendants.
Before MATHEWS, Circuit Judge, and GOODMAN and FRIEDMAN, District Judges.
This is an action to enjoin officials of the Wage Stabilization Board and of the National Enforcement Commission from continuing administrative proceedings against Grand Central Aircraft Company in Case No. 12-122 now pending before the Commission. The charges brought by the Wage Stabilization Board in a complaint filed on November 4, 1952, allege violations of Section 405(b) of the Defense Production Act of 1950, as amended, 50 U. S.C.A.Appendix, § 2105(b), and of regulations and orders issued thereunder. Specifically, the Board alleged that Grand Central Aircraft Company had made wage payments to its employees in 1951 in contravention of General Wage Stabilization Regulation 1, popularly known as "the wage freeze", promulgated by the Economic Stabilization Administrator. A hearing on the allegations of that complaint was set for February 24, 1953, before Enforcement Commissioner Phil C. Neal, at Los Angeles, California. On February 13, 1953, the company filed its complaint in the District Court for the Northern District of California, Southern Division, against regional and national officials of the Wage Stabilization Board and of the National Enforcement Commission to enjoin them from proceeding with the administrative hearing. The administrative hearing was then postponed, pending judicial action. On February 17, 1953, the defendant officials moved to dismiss the complaint. On March 11, 1953, a three-judge Court was appointed, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2282; and after a hearing on March 20, 1953, the Court issued a temporary restraining order directed against the regional officials who were within the Court's jurisdiction and took under advisement the company's motion for a preliminary injunction and the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint. On April 2, 1953, the defendants filed a motion to vacate the temporary restraining order; the three-judge Court heard argument on that motion and took the matter under advisement on May 1, 1953. On May 11, 1953, the Court issued a memorandum order for interlocutory injunction, finding that there were grave and important questions of law and fact to be determined on trial, and that if an interlocutory injunction were not granted, the company would suffer irreparable damage and ordered that an interlocutory injunction issue. On May 28, 1953, the Court issued the interlocutory injunction enjoining the regional officials of the Wage Stabilization Board and the Enforcement Commissioner from proceeding with the administrative proceedings upon condition that plaintiff post bond in the sum of $1,000 for the payment of costs and damages, should it develop that any party was wrongfully enjoined. (The Court reserved decision on the motion to dismiss the complaint.)
The Acting Solicitor General of the United States applied to the Supreme Court on June 5, 1953, for a stay of the interlocutory injunction granted by this Court; the Supreme Court denied the application on June 15, 1953. The case came on for trial before this Court on July 24, 1953, and was submitted that day.
The undisputed evidence convincingly showed that the plaintiff would be irreparably damaged by the continuance of the administrative proceedings. The plaintiff is engaged in the reconditioning of aircraft engines and equipment. It employs several thousand employees. Its plants are located in Southern California and Arizona. Over seventy-five per cent of its production is for defense purposes arising out of government contracts. During the course of the administrative proceedings, plaintiff was advised in writing by the representatives of the Enforcement Commission that it proposed to assess penalties by way of a recommendation of disallowance of deductions for tax purposes, if the evidence showed violation of the statute and regulations, in maximum amounts of from two to three million dollars. The testimony showed that the plaintiff had established a credit of six million dollars with a group of Los Angeles banks and that its current...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jonco Aircraft Corp. v. Franklin
...69 S.Ct. 1457, 93 L.Ed. 1628. "Quite recent cases by two three-judge statutory courts may be helpful. They are Grand Central Aircraft Co. v. Allen, D.C. N.D.Cal., 114 F.Supp. 389, interlocutory injunction granted May 28, 1953 (defendant's motion for stay order to U. S. Sup. Ct. filed June 5......
-
Allen v. Grand Central Aircraft Co
...sought by appellee against further conduct of the administrative proceeding. After hearing and trial, the injunction was made permanent. 114 F.Supp. 389. The order was then appealed to this Court under 28 U.S.C. (1952 ed.) § 1253, 28 U.S.C.A § 1253. Stay of the injunction was denied, two Ju......
-
Stardust, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission
...Central Aircraft Co., 347 U.S. 535, 74 S.Ct. 745, 98 L.Ed. 933 the Supreme Court reversed the decision of a three-judge court, D.C., 114 F.Supp. 389, 391, which granted an injunction to restrain the officer from holding hearings merely to recommend findings to a Regional Enforcement Commiss......