Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., D.C., Nos. 82-2017

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)
• Writing for the Court: Before ROBINSON, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and MacKINNON; PER CURIAM
• Citation: 801 F.2d 412,255 U.S.App.D.C. 198
• Parties: Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants, v. BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al. Calvin WALKER, et al., Appellants, v. BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al. John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Calvin WALKER and Rena Walker, Appellants, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Stanley WILMES, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. James H. BUCHANAN and Shirley Buchanan, his Wife, Appellants, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Stanley WILMES, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Calvin WALKER, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant, v. BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al. Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Glenwood WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. to 82-2531 and 83-1003.
• Docket Number: 82-2459,82-1899,82-2529,82-2148,82-2063,82-1809,82-2525,Nos. 82-2017,82-1784,82-1813,82-2458,82-2374,82-2062
• Decision Date: 02 September 1986

Page 412

801 F.2d 412 255 U.S.App.D.C. 198 Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants,
v.
BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al.
Calvin WALKER, et al., Appellants,
v.
BECHTEL CIVIL AND MINERALS, INC., et al.
John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Calvin WALKER and Rena Walker, Appellants,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Stanley WILMES, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Paul D. JOHNSON, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
James H. BUCHANAN and Shirley Buchanan, his Wife, Appellants,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Stanley WILMES, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Calvin WALKER, et al., Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
John Warren CLANAGAN, Appellant,
v.
BECHTEL ASSOCIATES PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION, D.C., et al.
Howard L. EIGHMEY, et al., Appellants,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY.
Glenwood WILLIAMS, Appellant,
v.
WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TRANSIT AUTHORITY. Nos. 82-2017, 82-1784, 82-1809, 82-1813, 82-1899, 82-2062,
82-2063, 82-2148, 82-2374, 82-2458, 82-2459,
82-2525, 82-2529 to 82-2531 and 83-1003. United States Court of Appeals,
District of Columbia Circuit. Sept. 2, 1986.

Page 413

Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civil Action Nos. 81-00963, 81-01261, 81-01125, 81-01481, 81-00114, 81-03057 and 82-00999).

Gary W. Brown and William G. Schaefer, Washington, D.C., were on the responses, of appellees Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., et al.

Vincent H. Cohen and Robert B. Cave, Washington, D.C., were on the responses, of appellee Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority.

William F. Mulroney and Peter J. Vangsnes, Washington, D.C., were on appellants' petition, for rehearing.

Before ROBINSON, Circuit Judge, and WRIGHT and MacKINNON, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion PER CURIAM.

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING

PER CURIAM:

Appellants petition the court to reconsider its supplemental judgment of August 27, 1984, ¹ affirming the District Court's prior

Page 414

rulings that appellee Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) enjoyed immunity from appellants' tort claims. The petition comes in light of legislation, enacted shortly after our judgment issued, that assertedly dictates the outcome of the case. Appellants also endeavor to raise new questions about WMATA's immunity. Because appellants' arguments are properly to be addressed, not on a petition for rehearing, but on a group of appeals from judgments of the District Court following our supplemental judgment, ² we deny the petition. I

Appellants are workers allegedly injured while performing underground construction work on the subway system serving the District of Columbia and its environs. They filed negligence actions against WMATA and others, and in 1982, the District Court granted the defendant-appellees' motions for summary judgment. ³ On appeal, we vacated the judgments, holding, inter alia, that WMATA could not assert immunity under Section 905(a) of the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. ⁴ In turn, the Supreme Court reversed, however, concluding that "WMATA [is] entitled to immunity from the tort actions brought by" appellants, ⁵ and remanded the case for further proceedings. In accordance with the Supreme Court's mandate, we entered the supplemental judgment to which the petition for rehearing relates, and directed the Clerk of this court to transmit a certified copy of the judgment to the District Court in lieu of a formal mandate. ⁶ On September 21, 1984, the District Court entered judgments for appellees. ⁷

On September 27, appellants filed in this court a petition for rehearing coupled with a suggestion of rehearing en banc. Their primary argument was made in anticipation of statutory amendments that were signed into law by the President the next day. ⁸ Appellants assert that the amendments legislatively overrule the Supreme Court's decision that WMATA enjoyed immunity, and urge this court to modify its supplemental judgment accordingly. They also claim that WMATA lacked immunity for another reason, which was not discussed by the Supreme Court. ⁹ We directed appellees to respond to these arguments.

On October 12, appellants noted separate appeals from the September 21 judgments

Page 415

of the District Court. These appeals are explicitly predicated upon a supposed denial by this panel of the relief requested by the petition for rehearing, and feature appellants' theory that the statutory amendments strip WMATA of immunity. The appeals have been briefed and argued orally, and are decided today. ¹⁰ II

Appellants assert an "absolute right" to petition for rehearing of our supplemental judgment pursuant to Rule 40 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and our Local Rule 14. Appellate Rule 40(a) provides that "[a] petition for rehearing may be filed within 14 days after entry of judgment unless the time is shortened or enlarged by order or by local rule." Local Rule 14(a) specifies, relevantly to this case, that "[a] party that wishes to file a petition for rehearing ... shall do so within 30 days after entry of judgment."

...