Security Farms v. International Broth. of Teamsters, Chauffers, Warehousemen & Helpers, 7

• Decision Date: 22 August 1997
• Docket Number: 95-15237,Nos. 95-15171,95-15296,D,96-15648,No. 7,96-15649 and 96-15686,96-15563,7,s. 95-15171
• Citation: 124 F.3d 999
• Parties: 156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2148, 134 Lab.Cas. P 10,046, 38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 856, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 597, 97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6727, 97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,940 SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated Association, Defendant-Appellee. SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated Association, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee. SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated Association, Defendant, and Teamsters Joint Councilefendant-Appellee. In re: GENERAL TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION LOCAL 890, Debtor, Debtor-in-Possession, Security Farms; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California Corporation, Freitas Farms; San Ysidro Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated Association, Defendant, and General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890, Defendant-Appellant. SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California Corporation, Freitas Farms; San Ysidro Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated Association, Defendant, and General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890, Defendant-Appellee. SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.; Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a Califo
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Page 999

124 F.3d 999

156 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2148, 134 Lab.Cas. P 10,046,

38 Fed.R.Serv.3d 856, 47 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 597,

97 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6727,

97 Daily Journal D.A.R. 10,940

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant-Appellee.

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee.

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant,

and

Teamsters Joint Council No. 7, Defendant-Appellee.

In re: GENERAL TEAMSTERS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS UNION

LOCAL 890, Debtor, Debtor-in-Possession,

Security Farms; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Freitas Farms; San Ysidro

Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant,

and

General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890,

Defendant-Appellant.

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Freitas Farms; San Ysidro

Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant,

and

General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890,

Defendant-Appellee.

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Freitas Farms; San Ysidro

Farms, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant-Appellant.

SECURITY FARMS; El Dorado Farms; Manriquez & Acuna, Inc.;

Higashi Farms, Inc.; Pisoni Farms, a California

Corporation, Plaintiffs-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFERS,

WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS, an Unincorporated

Association, Defendant-Appellant-Cross-Appellee,

and

General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union Local 890,

Debtor-Appellee.

Nos. 95-15171, 95-15237, 95-15296, 96-15563, 96-15648,

96-15649 and 96-15686.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted June 12, 1997.

Decided Aug. 22, 1997.

David G. Finkle, Los Angeles, CA, Charley M. Stoll, Camarillo, CA, for plaintiffs-appellees-cross-appellants.

Christian L. Raisner, Van Bourg, Weinberg, Roger & Rosenfeld, Oakland, CA, Duane B. Beeson, Robert Bonsall, Kathleen A. Murray, Beeson, Tayer & Bodine, for defendants-appellants-cross-appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; James Ware, District Judge, Presiding. D.C. No. CV-93-20491-JW.

Before: SNEED and KLEINFELD, Circuit Judges, and WALLACH, ^* International Trade Judge.

SNEED, Circuit Judge:

This opinion springs from controversies possible only in a highly specialized, vertically integrated industry, heavily dependent on relatively low skilled agricultural workers, whom a strong international union seeks to organize, and in which each major party is more than amply represented by members of the legal profession. The opinion thus reflects both the soil of California and the intense competitiveness of its people.

This case involves three defendants and three separate but related appeals. The appeals derive from Security Farms' and other agricultural growers' ("Growers") ¹ request

for damages for losses suffered by Growers in 1989 during a strike by General Teamsters, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local 890 ("Local 890"), against Bud Antle, Inc. ("Bud Antle"), a contractor of labor harvesting crops in California. Growers also seek to recover damages from the Local's parent union, the International Brotherhood of Teamsters ("the International"), and an intermediate union within the International's structure, Joint Council No. 7 ("the Joint Council").

I. BACKGROUND AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Bud Antle is a vertically integrated company which harvests, packs, markets, and ships California produce. It gets its produce from various growers throughout California, who own the land and grow the crop. To harvest and pack the growers' crops, Bud Antle is dependent on thousands of laborers represented by Local 890.

Prior to the strike, Local 890 found itself in financial disarray. The Local's internal problems undermined its ability to administer and enforce its collective bargaining agreements. Its failures regarding the Bud Antle agreement inspired some Local 890 members to file a petition to decertify the union. This petition, the threat of others like it, and the fact that Local 890 was in arrears on regular payments due the International spurred the parent union to action. It considered but rejected placing Local 890 in trusteeship. Instead, in May 1989, the International's General President appointed Alejandro Ybarrolaza to oversee the Local in its daily functions, particularly its financial affairs. ² Ybarrolaza had complete access to the Local's financial records. Moreover, he took a lead role in the representation of Union members and the negotiation of Local 890's collective bargaining agreements.

In the summer of 1989, Ybarrolaza participated in lengthy unsuccessful negotiations with Bud Antle. Toward the end of the 1989 summer, the employees represented by Local 890 voted down Bud Antle's final proposal for a new collective bargaining agreement. On September 11, 1989, the Joint Council granted Local 890's request for strike sanctions and on October 26, 1989 the strike commenced. Although Growers were not a party to the collective bargaining agreement, Local 890 members picketed Growers' fields.

A. The Strike

More than two thousand workers participated in the strike against Bud Antle. Local 890 established a chain of command whereby picket captains acted as liaisons between the picketers and Local 890's business agents. Picket captains lacked the authority to designate strike locations without the approval of a business agent, but were responsible for implementing the latter's instructions regarding strike activity.

On October 26, 1989, Bud Antle's union employees left the fields where they were harvesting and reported to Bud Antle's offices and cooler facilities--strike areas previously designated by Local 890 officials. Initially, Local 890 officials thought that field picketing would be unnecessary and Ybarrolaza advised them against it. Moreover, in the early stages of the strike, the business agents instructed both picket captains and picketers to strike peacefully, without violence, and to not "do anything that would create any problems." However, Growers provided testimony and documentary evidence at trial which, despite the Union's early intentions, portrayed a violent strike not only tolerated but at times inspired by Local 890 officials.

Frank Gallegos, President of Local 890, was arrested by state police for impeding the entrance to a Bud Antle facility in Salinas and for resisting arrest. Arrests of other union officials followed. Teresa Escamilla, a picket captain, rushed into the fields owned by Growers, a technique used to intimidate replacement workers, and was arrested.

Arturo Castro, a business agent, conceded that field picketing occurred but maintained that he did not authorize it. However, a fellow business agent testified at trial that Castro himself entered a field on one occasion with the intent of confronting a nonstriking worker. In any event, Castro was present during many of the violent outbreaks. Although the Union knew of Castro's presence in the fields, it never removed him from his post nor disciplined him in any way. Likewise, Escamilla, despite her disobedience, maintained her position as a picket captain and her place on the negotiating committee.

Ybarrolaza, on the other hand, did not picket during the strike and, to repeat, did advise the Local against the practice of field picketing. He also participated in negotiations to end the strike and reported to the International and the Joint Council on the status of the strike and the negotiations.

B. The Lawsuit

Growers turned to the state courts for relief, filing a series of lawsuits alleging only state law violations by Local 890 for the actions of its picketers. On August 13, 1990, Local 890 filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code which automatically stayed the pending state court actions. Growers then amended their complaints to substitute the International and the Joint Council for "Doe" defendants on the basis of the organizations' participation in the Bud Antle strike. Two years and several hearings later, the bankruptcy court lifted the automatic stay and Growers coordinated the many state lawsuits into one action, Teamsters Labor Dispute II, Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 2650.

The International was not content; several procedural skirmishes ensued. On February 12, 1993, the International removed the coordinated proceeding to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a), where it was automatically referred to the bankruptcy court. The International resisted the referral and on February 18, 1993, filed a motion to withdraw the reference from the bankruptcy court. Meanwhile, the bankruptcy court issued an order remanding the case back to state court. That order was stayed by the federal district court pending a decision on the motion to...