Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.
| Citation | 861 F.2d 565 |
| Decision Date | 16 November 1988 |
| Docket Number | 86-1832,Nos. 86-1815,86-1834,s. 86-1815 |
| Parties | Shereen Ramona ZIPFEL, Individually and as Administratrix of Ian Charles Zipfel, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. HALLIBURTON COMPANY; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Ptd, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil (Malacca), Ltd.; Dome Petroleum, Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Corporation; Arco Oil and Gas Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Ten Fong CRAIG, Individually and as Administratrix of the Estate of William Henry Craig, deceased, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. ATLANTIC RICHFIELD COMPANY; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, S.A.; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, PTE, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil (Malacca), Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Ltd.; Dome Petroleum Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants- Appellees. Chan Luck CHEE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. McCLELLAND ENGINEERS, INC.; McClelland Engineers, S.A.; McClelland Engineers SDN. BHD.; Halliburton Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continental Oil Company (Conoco, Inc.); Hudson Bay Oil & Gas Company, Ltd.; Hudbay Oil, Ltd. (Indonesia); Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, S.A.; Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, PTE, Ltd.; Dome Petroleum, Ltd., Dome Petroleum Corporation; Arco Oil and Gas Corporation; PT Airfast Services Indonesia; and Exquisitor Helicopter Corporation, Defendants-Appellees. Vyner Gerard ALBUQUERQUE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OCEANEERING INTERNATIONAL, INC.; Oceaneering International, SDN, BHD.; Halliburton Company; Atlantic Richfield Company; Crowley Maritime Corporation, Brinkerhoff Maritime Drilling, Inc.; Continenta |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Before SCHROEDER, WIGGINS and THOMPSON, Circuit Judges.
Defendants-appellees Halliburton Company, et al. ("Halliburton"), move this court to recall the mandate, issued pursuant to our amended opinion in this case, Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 832 F.2d 1477 (9th Cir.1987). Halliburton contends that our opinion conflicts with the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., --- U.S. ----, 108 S.Ct. 1684, 100 L.Ed.2d 127 (1988). We agree. We order the mandate recalled and we amend our opinion as set out below.
The authority of a Court of Appeals to recall its mandate is clear. Aerojet-General Corp. v. American Arbitration Association, 478 F.2d 248, 254 (9th Cir.1973). While the authority is not conferred by statute, id., it exists as part of the court's power to protect the integrity of its own processes. Perkins v. Standard Oil, 487 F.2d 672, 674 (9th Cir.1973), citing Briggs v. Pennsylvania R.R. Co., 334 U.S. 304, 306, 68 S.Ct. 1039, 1040, 92 L.Ed. 1403 (1948); Samson Tire & Rubber Corp. v. Rogan, 140 F.2d 457 (9th Cir.1943); Huntley v. Southern Oregon Sales, Inc., 104 F.2d 153, 155 (9th Cir.1939); accord, Petersen v. Klos, 433 F.2d 911, 912 (5th Cir.1970). The authority may be exercised for "good cause" or to "prevent injustice." Aerojet-General at 254; Verrilli v. City of Concord, 557 F.2d 664, 665 (9th Cir.1977). This power, however, should be exercised only in exceptional circumstances. Johnson v. Bechtel Associates Professional Corp., 801 F.2d 412, 416 (D.C.Cir.1986). Whether the power is exercised at all falls within the discretion of the court, but such discretion should be employed to recall a mandate only when good cause or unusual circumstances exist sufficient to justify modification or recall of a prior judgment. American Iron and Steel Institute v. EPA, 560 F.2d 589, 594-95 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 914, 98 S.Ct. 1467, 55 L.Ed.2d 505 (1978).
When a decision of the Supreme Court "departs in some pivotal aspects" from a decision of a federal appeals court, recall of a mandate may be warranted to the extent necessary " 'to protect the integrity' " of the court of appeals' prior judgment. American Iron and Steel, 560 F.2d at 596. Modification of a prior judgment also promotes uniformity in judicial decisionmaking and in the treatment of litigants. Id. at 597-98.
The recent Supreme Court decision in Chick Kam Choo departs in a pivotal aspect from our decision of the injunction issue in this case. The effect of this departure is to overrule our resolution of the injunction issue, at least in part. We, therefore, exercise our power to recall the mandate and amend the opinion "[b]ecause of an overpowering sense of fairness and a firm belief that this is the exceptional case requiring recall of the mandate in order to
prevent an injustice...." Verrilli, 557 F.2d at 665.
As in the present case, Chick Kam Choo involved application of the third exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2283 (1982). Under this exception, a federal district court may grant an injunction staying relitigation in state court "to protect or effectuate its judgments." 1
The facts in Chick Kam Choo are similar to those presented in this case. In Chick Kam Choo, a Singapore resident was killed in Singapore while repairing a ship owned by the foreign subsidiary of a United States corporation. His widow brought suit in federal district court in Texas. She presented claims under the Jones Act, 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 688 (1982), the Death on the High Seas Act ("DOHSA"), 46 U.S.C.App. Sec. 761 et seq. (1982), the general maritime law of the United States, and the Texas Wrongful Death Statutes, Tex.Civ.Prac. & Rem.Code Ann. Secs. 71.001-71.031 (1986). Chick Kam Choo, 108 S.Ct. at 1687. The district court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Jones Act and DOHSA claims, finding these statutes inapplicable. Id. at 1688. As to the general maritime law claim,
[T]he District Court applied factors identified in Lauritzen [v. Larsen, 345 U.S. 571, 73 S.Ct. 921, 97 L.Ed. 1254] and Hellenic Lines Ltd. v. Rhoditis, 398 U.S. 306, 90 S.Ct. 1731, 26 L.Ed.2d 252 (1970), to the choice-of-law question and concluded that the "statutory and maritime law of the United States should not be applied." App. 32. This conclusion led the court to grant summary judgment on [the widow's] general maritime law claim, as well as to consider whether dismissal of the rest of the case was warranted under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. After reviewing the various factors set out in [Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 67 S.Ct. 839, 91 L.Ed. 1055 (1947) ], the court concluded that dismissal was appropriate and accordingly granted [defendants'] motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, provided [defendants] submit to the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. Chick Kam Choo v. Exxon Corp., 699 F.2d 693, cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826, 104 S.Ct. 98, 78 L.Ed.2d 103 (1983).
Chick Kam Choo, 108 S.Ct. at 1688.
Instead of filing suit in Singapore, the widow filed suit in Texas state court. She eschewed her federal law claims and proceeded in state court solely on her state law and Singapore law claims. 2 The defendants responded by filing a new action in federal district court in which they sought an injunction to enjoin the Texas state court proceedings and any other proceedings which the widow might file in any court in the United States. The district court granted the injunction. 3 The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed. It rejected Addressing the relitigation exception to the Anti-Injunction Act, the Court in Chick Kam Choo stated:
the widow's contention that the injunction violated the Anti-Injunction Act, and ruled "that the injunction ... fell within the 'relitigation' exception to the Act, which permits a federal court to issue an injunction 'to protect or effectuate its judgments.' " Id. at 1688. The Fifth Circuit reasoned that the "reverse-Erie " uniformity doctrine required that federal forum non conveniens determinations preempt state law. The federal district court had decided the federal forum non conveniens issue, and any further inquiry into that issue by a state court was preempted. Id. at 1689. The Fifth Circuit's opinion in Chick Kam Choo conflicted with our Zipfel opinion. The Supreme Court granted certiorari in Chick Kam Choo to resolve the conflict. Id
The relitigation exception was designed to permit a federal court to prevent state litigation of an issue that previously was presented to and decided by the federal court. It is founded in the well-recognized concepts of res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Chick Kam Choo at 1690. The Court pointed out that while ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Patterson v. Haskins
...and amounted to "extraordinary" circumstances that merited recall of the mandate. 2 Fed.Appx. at 400 (citing Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988)). As the BellSouth court observed, other circuits have similarly applied the "exceptional circumstances" standard regardin......
-
U.S. v. Davis
...our previous decision regarding Williams' sentence, we granted the government's motion to recall the mandate. See Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988). We permitted the government to file a second petition for rehearing, and Williams to file a response. Based on those......
-
Ex parte James
...was entered.' Id. at 276. It `exists as part of the court's power to protect the integrity of its own processes,' Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988), and is analogous to the power conferred on district courts by Fed.R.Civ.P. "Amendments to the federal judicial code ......
-
Carrington v. U.S.
...mandate in order to protect the integrity of our processes, but should only do so in exceptional circumstances. Zipfel v. Halliburton, Co., 861 F.2d 565, 567 (9th Cir.1988). In Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 549-50, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), the Supreme Court affirmed our......
-
REEXAMINING RECALL OF MANDATE: LIMITATIONS ON THE INHERENT POWER TO CHANGE FINAL JUDGMENTS.
...v. United States, 503 F.3d 888 (9th Cir. 2007); United States v. Crawford, 422 F.3d 1145 (9th Cir. 2005); Zipfel v. Halliburton Co., 861 F.2d 565 (9th Cir. (116.) Cf. United States v. Emeary, 773 F.3d 619, 623 (5th Cir. 2014) (denying defendant's motion for recall of mandate on his sentence......