McComb v. Row River Lumber Co., 12154.
Decision Date | 30 August 1949 |
Docket Number | No. 12154.,12154. |
Parties | McCOMB, Adm'r, Wage & Hour Division, U. S. Department of Labor v. ROW RIVER LUMBER CO. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
William S. Tyson, Solicitor, Bessie Margolin, Asst. Solicitor, William A. Lowe, Joseph M. Stone, E. Gerald Lamboley, Attorneys, U. S. Dept. of Labor, Washington, D. C., Kenneth C. Robertson, Regional Attorney, James F. Scott, Attorney, U. S. Dept. of Labor, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
David L. Davies, James P. Rogers, Portland, Or. (Hart, Spencer, McCulloch, Rockwood & Davies, Portland, Or., of counsel), for appellee.
Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
This is a motion to dismiss an appeal because of the dissolution of appellee corporation. Appellant moves to substitute the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company, which succeeded to appellee's assets, as appellee here.
Appellant sought an injunction below under Section 17 of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 217, to restrain appellee from violating section 15 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 215. The district court denied the injunction and dismissed the complaint. Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal, and subsequently the Booth-Kelly Lumber Company, which had owned 49.8% of appellee's stock, purchased the remainder of the outstanding stock and dissolved the appellee corporation and acquired all its assets. Booth-Kelly continued the operation of the lumber camp involved herein, but has voluntarily ceased the activities objected to by appellant.
We deny the motion to dismiss. Appellee contends that, although it is still in being for purposes of carrying on litigation arising out of past activities (Oregon Compiled Laws § 77-259), it cannot continue in its corporate business, hence it cannot possibly continue the alleged violations of the act complained of by appellant.
Since appellee is still in existence for the purpose of defending actions, we are not met with the difficulty that confronted the Supreme Court in Walling v. Reuter Co., 321 U.S. 671, 675, 64 S.Ct. 826, 88 L.Ed. 1001. In that case the administrator had obtained an injunction in the district court under the same act as involved here. The court of appeals reversed, and the administrator was successful in obtaining a writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. Then the respondent corporation dissolved and, under the applicable state law, was not in existence for any purpose. Hence the court could not render a judgment on the merits. But the court vacated the court of appeals reversal and left the administrator with his district court judgment. Here, as the Oregon law allows a dissolved corporation to sue or be sued for five years after dissolution, we can render an effective judgment on the merits.
The situation in the instant case seems to us to present an even stronger case for retaining the appeal and adjudicating the merits, because if we dismiss the appeal appellant cannot fall back on his lower court judgment and possibly enforce it against the successor corporation. Cf. Walling v. James V. Reuter Co., supra, 321 U.S. at page 674, 64 S.Ct. at page 827. Rule 65(d), Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
The motion to dismiss the appeal is denied.
We are of the opinion that this motion should be denied. Appellant contends that substitution is required by Rule 25(c), Federal Rules Civil Procedure:
The Rules of Civil Procedure "govern the procedure in the district courts of the United States", Rule 1. These rules are adopted by this court wherever applicable with respect to appeals in civil actions. But it will be...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
SJ Properties Suites v. Specialty Finance Group, LLC
...transfer of interest." Panther Pumps & Equip. Co., Inc. v. Hydrocraft, Inc., 566 F.2d 8, 16 (7th Cir.1977) (citing McComb v. Row River Lumber Co., 177 F.2d 129 (9th Cir.1949)). In this matter, the record indicates that the Plaintiffs are not a party to the Loan Agreement or Loan Commitment ......
-
Lee v. Mt. Ivy Press, L.P.
...discretion of the appellate court. See Fred Harvey, Inc. v. Mooney, 526 F.2d 608, 611 (7th Cir.1975), citing McComb v. Row River Lumber Co., 177 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir.1949). Compare Williams v. Ely, 423 Mass. 467, 478, 668 N.E.2d 799 (1996) (review of ruling on motion brought under Mass.R.......
-
Paleteria La Michoacana, Inc. v. Productos Lacteos Tocumbo S.A. De C.V., Civil Action No.: 11–1623 (RC)
...River Lumber Co. , which PROLACTO cites in its brief, the Ninth Circuit refused to bring an unwilling defendant into the case. 177 F.2d 129, 130 (9th Cir. 1949). The court explained that it had allowed substitutions "in cases where the plaintiff below has transferred his interest in the sub......
-
Select Creations, Inc. v. Paliafito America, Inc., 91-C-1240
...Cir.1985). As such, we find that joinder pursuant to Rule 25(c) remains committed to our discretion. See, e.g., McComb v. Row River Lumber Co., 177 F.2d 129 (9th Cir.1949); Luxliner P.L. Export Co. v. RDI/Luxliner, Inc., 13 F.3d 69, 71 (3d Cir.1993); National Independent Theater Exhibitors,......