Jones v. American President Lines, Limited
| Decision Date | 20 March 1957 |
| Citation | 149 Cal.App.2d 319,308 P.2d 393 |
| Court | California Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
| Parties | , 40 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2035, 32 Lab.Cas. P 70,633 William H. JONES, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. AMERICAN PRESIDENT LINES, Ltd., S. Souza, Melvin M. Vaughan, et al., Defendants and Respondents. Civ. 17077. |
John J. Taheny, San Francisco, for appellant.
Lillick, Geary, Wheat, Adams & Charles, Gary J. Torre, Gordon L. Poole, San Francisco, for respondents.
The appeal is from a judgment entered after a demurrer to the first amended complaint was sustained without leave to amend. The demurrer, filed by the three named defendants jointly, was based upon only one ground, namely: lack of jurisdiction in the State Court.
The complaint alleges in two counts an action for damages resulting from a civil conspiracy among the three defendants to deny plaintiff his rights to employment aboard two of the company's ships. Whatever determination is made as to one count applies to the other for they merely represent different instances in which appellant was not accepted for work after reference therefor by the registration office.
The complaint alleges that the Pacific Maritime Association, acting for defendant shipping company and other like companies in December 1948, contracted with a cooks' and stewards' union concerning substantive rights of shipping company employees. Detailed provisions were contained for settlement of all disputes connected with the agreement by arbitration under the designation 'Grievance Machinery.'
In an action filed by the National Labor Relations Board in the United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, a Consent Decree was entered in May 1952 on behalf of American President Lines and other shipping companies, by which decree it was ordered that all parties desist from performing or giving effect to the 1948 contract. The decree, however, ordered into immediate effect a certain 'Outline of Terms and Conditions of Employment of Cooks and Stewards,' portions of which are pleaded in the complaint. That Outline provided that the substantive parts of the contract regarding wages, conditions of employment, shall remain in effect and that employees shall continue to have the rights they had under the contract. One of the provisions of the Outline which, in fact, forms the basis of plaintiff's allegation of civil conspiracy and consequent damage is as follows:
'Section 5. Non-Discrimination.
'No employee or applicant for employment shall be discriminated against by reason of sex, race, creed, color, national origin, political views or affiliations, or legitimate union activity.'
The Outline then provides for a central registration office for registering applicants for work as maritime cooks and stewards, for a master registration list by which applicants would be hired in sequence of time of registration, and then provides for the appointment of a referee having power to finally adjudicate all disputes and grievances arising out of such employment. Contained in the Outline is the following paragraph:
'3. Grievances. Grievances may be presented by any employee. He may at the outset of each voyage or thereafter designate a delegate from among the ship's stewards department to represent him for the handling of any grievances aboard ship. He may consult in port with a representative of any union regarding the case. He may have such representative present, or assist in the presentation of, his case to the company representative. If the adjustment of the grievance at this step is unsatisfactory, the individual may appeal to a Port Committee step by designating the Port Committee of a stewards department union as his representative. Appeal to the Court appointed referee is the final, or arbitration, step, where an individual may be represented by a representative of the union he has designated.'
The Outline gives the referee power to settle disputes on an applicant's qualifications for a position without a formal hearing yet reserving to the unions and Pacific Maritime Association a reasonable opportunity to present relevant evidence. The complaint then alleges (legal conclusions) 'that said Decree and said Outline contained no provisions for the arbitration or adjudication of controversies concerning claims for damages on account of conspiracies and other wrongful acts causing damage by the denial of the substantive rights afforded a seaman by Section 5 of said contract.'
Then follow allegations that plaintiff having registration priority and proper qualifications therefor was on December 8, 1954, refused the job of relief cook on the S.S. President Monroe; and in like manner in the second cause of action, on February 1, 1955, he was refused the job of sauce cook on the S.S. President Cleveland. It is alleged that the real reason for the refusal to hire plaintiff was because he was a member of the Negro race. It is next alleged that defendant Vaughan was port captain with general supervision at San Francisco of hiring employees for defendant shipping company and that defendant Souza was its shipping master who had personally refused to hire plaintiff for the two ships.
The plaintiff alleges that the three defendants conspired to defraud plaintiff of his rights, resulting in deprivation of those rights accorded him under Section 5 of the contract to his damage in a stated amount for each cause of action, together with request for punitive damages.
We start with some well recognized principles of law: A demurrer admits all the allegations of the complaint which are well pleaded, and it must be assumed on appeal from a judgment predicated upon the sustaining of a demurrer that plaintiff could prove all the facts as alleged. Wirin v. Horrall, 85 Cal.App.2d 497, 193 P.2d 470. Truth of conclusions of law are not deemed admitted by a demurrer, Connecticut Gen. L. Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 8 Cal.2d 624, 67 P.2d 675, and the same is true of allegations which are contrary to facts of which a court may have judicial knowledge.
To state a cause of action for conspiracy facts must be alleged showing the formation and operation of a conspiracy and damage resulting from acts done in furtherance of the plan. The cause of action is for the damage suffered, not the mere conspiracy; and facts must be alleged which show that a civil wrong was done resulting in damages. Respondent concedes there are sufficient allegations...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Merrell v. All Seasons Resorts, Inc.
...some degree of protection against discriminatory actions by employers and labor unions). Compare Jones v. American President Lines, Ltd., 149 Cal.App.2d 319, 323, 308 P.2d 393 (1957) (prior to amendments to article I, section 8 of the California Constitution and Fair Employment and Housing ......
-
Stop Loss Ins. Brokers v. Btmg
...of Stop Loss's cross-complaint, we must assume the truth of all well-pleaded facts in that pleading. (Jones v. American President Lines (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 319, 322, 308 P.2d 393.) To the extent that the Regents' complaint contains contrary allegations, we must, for purposes of evaluating......
-
People ex rel. Garamendi v. American Autoplan, Inc.
...Cade v. Superior Court (1961) 191 Cal.App.2d 554, 12 Cal.Rptr. 847 [demurrer and motion to quash service]; Jones v. American President Lines (1957) 149 Cal.App.2d 319, 308 P.2d 393.) After it has been raised by answer, the party asserting the application of the rule may obtain a trial court......
-
Legg v. Breitenbach
...and since such an act cannot be a civil wrong, a conspiracy to accomplish it is similarly not actionable. (Jones v. American President Lines, 149 Cal.App.2d 319, 322-323, 308 P.2d 393.) The purported appeal from the judgment and from the order 'denying plaintiff of her right to amend her co......