Pine Ridge Coal Co. v. Local 8377 United Mine Workers

• Decision Date: 07 May 1999
• Docket Number: CA-95-174-2,No. 97-2666,97-2666
• Parties: (4th Cir. 1999) PINE RIDGE COAL COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL 8377, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated labor association; LOCAL 6426, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated labor association, Defendants-Appellants. (). . Argued:
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Fourth Circuit

Page 415

187 F.3d 415 (4th Cir. 1999)

PINE RIDGE COAL COMPANY, a corporation, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. LOCAL 8377, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated labor association; LOCAL 6426, UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA, an unincorporated labor association, Defendants-Appellants.

No. 97-2666 (CA-95-174-2).

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS, FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT.

Argued: May 7, 1999.

Decided: August 4, 1999.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Charlestown.

Jerry D. Hogg, Magistrate Judge.

[Copyrighted Material Omitted] COUNSEL ARGUED: William D. Ryan, DISTRICT 17, UMWA, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellants. Steven Paul McGowan, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. ON BRIEF: Irene P. Keeley, STEPTOE & JOHNSON, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and MOON, United States District Judge for the Western District of Virginia, sitting by designation.

Affirmed by published per curiam opinion.

OPINION

PER CURIAM:

On March 14, 1995, United Mine Workers of America, Locals 8377 and 6426 ("UMWA"), engaged in an unauthorized work stoppage at Pine Ridge Coal Company's ("Pine Ridge") Big Mountain Complex and related mining facilities in Boone County, West Virginia. The day of this "wildcat strike," which lasted three shifts, Pine Ridge filed a complaint in the district court and obtained a temporary restraining order to end the strike. In addition, pursuant to § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C. § 185, Pine Ridge sought recovery of its fixed daily costs for the period of the strike. The district judge granted summary judgment to Pine Ridge on the liability issue. UMWA does not appeal that order. By agreement of the parties, the district judge referred the damages issue to the magistrate judge. After the magistrate judge permitted the parties to file motions for summary judgment, he granted summary judgment to Pine Ridge in the amount of $85,500 plus post-judgment interest.

UMWA contends that (1) the magistrate judge was not authorized to order cross motions on summary judgment on the damages issue, and (2) the court erred in the calculation of damages because a genuine issue of fact exists regarding the amount of damages. We disagree and affirm the magistrate judge's grant of summary judgment on the damages issue.

I.

After the district judge granted summary judgment on the liability issue, he entered an amended scheduling order on April 17, 1997, setting the damages issue for trial on September 23, 1997. However on May 13, 1997, he entered another order providing that "[p]ursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) and voluntary consent of the parties, it is hereby ordered that this action be referred to United States Magistrate Judge Jerry D. Hogg to conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including jury trial and entry of a final judgment." Magistrate Judge Hogg subsequently entered an order adopting the provisions of the April 17, 1997 scheduling order.

In late August, subsequent to the expiration of the discovery deadline, Pine Ridge filed a motion for summary judgment with two supporting affidavits. The magistrate judge denied UMWA's motion objecting to that filing and set dates for UMWA to file its brief in opposition as well as a cross motion for summary judgment. After hearing oral argument, the magistrate judge granted Pine Ridge's motion for summary judgment and awarded damages in the amount of $85,500 plus post-judgment interest. This figure represents the total of the fixed costs for one day at each one of Pine Ridge's facilities affected by the strike.

II.

The first issue is whether the magistrate judge erred in allowing the parties to file their cross motions for summary judgment on the damages issue. The magistrate judge scheduled a pretrial conference for September 8, 1997. Prior to September 8, Pine Ridge filed its motion for summary judgment. At the pretrial conference, UMWA objected to the filing of the motion on the grounds that the district judge's April 17, 1997 amended scheduling order did not provide for dispositive motions and the parties contemplated a jury trial on the issue of damages. The magistrate judge ruled that Pine Ridge's motion for summary judgment be accepted as timely filed and set September 25, 1997 for UMWA to respond to the motion for summary judgment. The order also provided a date for UMWA to file a cross motion for summary judgment. The trial date was then rescheduled. UMWA filed a memorandum of law in opposition to Pine Ridge's motion for summary judgment, but filed no affidavits contradicting the facts set forth in Pine Ridge's affidavits. On November 4, 1997, the magistrate judge granted Pine Ridge's motion for summary judgment and awarded damages based on daily fixed costs as reasonable and necessary expenditures incurred during the March 14, 1995 strike.

UMWA argues that because the amended scheduling order, entered on April 17, 1997 by the district court judge and adopted by the magistrate judge, did not indicate a deadline for filing dispositive motions, then Pine Ridge was precluded from filing its motion for summary judgment. This argument is without merit.

The May 13, 1997 order referred the case to the magistrate judge to "conduct any and all further proceedings in this case, including jury trial and entry of final judgment." The order was entered pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c). Section 636(c)(1) provides in part that "[u]pon the consent of the parties, a full-time United States magistrate . . . may conduct any or all proceedings in a jury or nonjury civil matter and order the entry of judgment in the case, when specially designated to exercise such jurisdiction by the district court . .. ." Section 636(c)(3) provides in part that "[t]he consent of the parties allows a magistrate designated to exercise civil jurisdiction under paragraph (1) of this subsection to direct the entry of a judgment of the district court in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."

Thus, by the terms of the May 13, 1997 order and§ 636(c), the magistrate judge was substituted for the district judge with the same authority as that of the district judge. We interpret the language in the order referencing a jury trial as being merely inclusive of the powers of the magistrate judge, not limiting his powers. Therefore, the magistrate judge's ability to grant judgment on the damages issue was no different from that of the district judge.

Rule 56(c) mandates that summary judgment motions are to "be served at least 10 days before the time fixed for the hearing." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). Pursuant to the pretrial order that was agreed to by both parties, the discovery deadline was August 15, 1997. Pine Ridge filed its motion for summary judgment on August 27, 1997, twelve days after the discovery cut-off and twelve days prior to the scheduled pretrial conference. It is irrelevant that the "hearing" was a pretrial conference, Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(c)(5), or that the magistrate judge and not the district court judge granted the summary judgment motion. Fed.R.Civ.P. 16(b) and 28 U.S.C. § 636. UMWA received ample notice of the motion. Therefore, the magistrate judge properly exercised his authority to hold that Pine Ridge's motion was timely and to order that cross motions be filed by UMWA.

III.

UMWA claims that the magistrate judge erred in granting damages in the amount of Pine Ridge's fixed daily costs. Specifically, UMWA claims that the costs were not appropriately calculated and that fixed daily costs are not recoverable in this case.

We review the district court's summary judgment ruling on damages de novo. Clark v. Alexander, 85 F.3d 146 (4th Cir. 1996); Havistola v. Community Fire Co., 6 F.3d 211, 214 (4th Cir. 1993). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the Court, viewing the record as a whole and in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, determines that there exists no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Celotex Corp., 477 U.S. 317, 322-24 (1986).

Pine Ridge submitted two affidavits with its motion for summary judgment detailing the calculation method for its damages. The affidavit of E. Kent Hartsog, Director of Financial Planning for Eastern Associated Coal Corporation, states that "the General Ledger of Pine Ridge is maintained in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principals ("GAAP") applied on a consistent basis;" and that "the damage amounts . . . reflects [sic] the average actual fixed costs incurred for the work stoppage." Also, Hartsog's affidavit asserts that Pine Ridge would have generated production revenue sufficient to cover its fixed costs in the normal course of business had the work stoppage not occurred.

In the second affidavit, Paul E. Arbogast, managing partner for Ernst & Young, stated that upon review of Pine Ridge's calculation of damages, he found that the information contained therein was the type reasonably relied upon by accountants to determine damages when there is no claim for lost profits. The information reviewed by Arbogast included the exhibits attached to Pine Ridge's motion for summary judgment. These exhibits consisted of a detailed listing of the depreciation and administrative costs as...