Brief for the Respondents in Opposition — Alexander v. Pacific Maritime Ass'n

Subject Index :

Page

The question promental .......,, Fr. ˙·˙ dacscuis |

ease why the writ should not be granted ..........,.., 2

The Court of Appenle correctly held that the order dis.

mining the complaint for want of promeution was not

war oboe of et lj 1

D ⅛è⅛ʃr!X! ! ˙7˙. . /r. 2

D ˙ —:S̃ ² . Qn fh

G m. 11

{

„„ — —— ne >

Table of Authorities Cited

Cases Lad

Agnew v Moody, t ,, i Na (0 (r. 166)

Alexander v, ee, Marit l Anweiation, 444 bud 150

Äùͤ ³ ẽ AA ˙m w.ͥp TT TTT RTT Orr enT 1, , 7

Beautort Conevete Company y, Atlantic eee ( cnet ⁰νti

is Ge ee GD CED Wiscccrroorcrcrovvccceseine tj

Coleman v. Mupevioy Court, 15 Cal. App. 74, 26 Pad 0%

(OC, App, % 44 , — OD

eee v, Rockwell Manufacturip® Co., an ka

% eaten 1

Dowd Box Co, v. Courtney, 366 . 502 (10% 0. „ .

Kdmond v. Moove-MeCormack Lines, 263 V. d 143 (2 Cir.

b . 1

Keteva V. towne of . Ine, 314 F.2d 827 7 Cir

V . .

ii Tan ov Au'rnonrrine Crrmp

Vitvaimmons v. Gilpin, 368 Wid 561 (0 Civ, 1006)

Vol Basket, Ine. . Albertaon’s, Ine, 416 V d 987 (10

(ip, 1060) PER SS „ reer error eere BABAR REES Eee ee ee

fiovsuch . Provident Nevurity Lite Inu Uo,, % Bild

t ͤ ABB.... ¶˙ OC *

irunewall v. MEI Pucitic Railrond Company, 301 V. 24d

COD (0 Oy, BOGS) e pb tb sedneee eas 7

ler . Reynolds Metal Co, 4384 V. 2d 1064 (0 Civ, 1970) 7

Kelley . United States, SUN . 24 de ( Cie, 1064) 1

henmey v. California Tanker Co, An V, 776 ( Clr,

1067), wort, clon, WO (J. . 0 % —riirr . ꝝ 7

hyptok Voy. Hawn & Co, 217 Ped, 267 (KD. Pa,

TT—!.. ⁵⁵m— m TT Terre eer eer *

Linh „ Wan eee Company, n U.N. 626 (1062)

777. t. Torey See reer h, 6, 10

Maiovani v. Kawasaki Kine K.K., Kobe, 425 Bid 1162

(2 en, 1070), bert, den, SOO TLS, O10 (107% 0... 7

Montgomery . Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 0 Fudd

07 (be, 10%) J shine civaess. *

Morris , Florida, S08 . BDO ( ))) 6

Provensa vo II. 4 W. Wreeking Co, 424 Vd 620-05 Clr,

11 ̃ñðͤ ß, ̃ ̃ ß , , ,,,, ad 7

Suntan v. United States, beh I. oO (106% 6

neter \. Warehouse Kmployees Union Loeal No, 730,

Hom Feld 20h (DC Civ, 1969), bort, den, 305 US. O84

. n. ⅛ —VPñ!ß! —PNPpf̃ Ä ˙ w *

Shotkin . Westinghoune Klectrie & Manufacturing Co,, 160

, caches vbaey ̃¶ ĩͥłů 4

States Mtewmahip Co. v. Philippine Airlines Co, and Quantas

Meways, 426 F.2d 508 (0 (ir. 10) eee 7

Thealoropoulos e Thompson-Starvett Co, 418 F.2d 350

„%% ee is Ce Pee ee 7

Torino v, Texaeo Ine, 378 F.2d 268 (d Cir, 1067) 7

Tan ov Aurnonrime Crrup 11

e

United Mtates v. Carle K run Co. 106 . 1013 (COLBP.A,

JJ re rar yey ene Pe ann nen nn ~

Zwliney v. Newmann, 214 N.Y sop dd 1, 18 A. %%% 740

D,, ̃ eee pas 100

California Code of Civil Prosedure, Nest t Iv. 4

Rules

Rules of Practioe of the United Mtates District Court:

, ˙ TTT „ bb

——— ²ð⅛·½ ½ ̃ ͤ —ũͤtt . ili

Vedeval Rules of Civil Procedure (is 1.0%

＋ ran rs SS. 0

/ Cree er errr eee eT J., 40

Statutes

United Staten Arbitration Act (0 UW 60) . 4

Zu the Supreme Court

OF THE

Anited States

Ocronan Tun, 1970

*

No. 1304

2 *

Fund A, ALEXANDER, et al., :

3 Petitioners,

Ve, |

Pacivic Maritime Association,

m nen goet corporation, et al.,

7 Respondents, |

BRIEF OF RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO

PETITION POR WRIT OF CERTIORARI

THE QUESTION PRESENTED

While the petition argues the merits of petitioners’

claims, we submit that the only question is whether

an ius of sufficient importance to warrant review by

this Court is presented by the determination of the

Court of Appeals that the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in dismissing the proceeding for

want of prosecution,

— (WE WEIt eHOULD Wer BR ORANTED

f fret te neee

fed tm Hate U9 of te Maken of thin Quart, whieh

rth fe the eventing ef the ert Eder not

— W

wart nee — 1

Iii.

l

jal ETT

15 nf

4

˖ 2 9 f

tw mare on dene een, with the ar.

Titration proce compinted, petitioner were free

ty proceed te comtt, ty seek te varate and N the

Avtitrater’s award: that they permitted the matutery:

tie within which they contd have dene a (8 URC,

612: ef., California Onde of Oivil Procedare, 60888)

ty expire withent taking any action at all: that they

did nothiae whatewurr antl the Dntrict eee

sports and purmant to tte focal miles, reared 97 order

to show cane why the action should not be deemed

for failure te prosecute; that thereupen, ten end a

award, petitioners filed a motion te compel reqrond-

ants te file anewer and te anewer interragatenes but

wo matten te varate or ant aside the arbitration

award: that reqpondent. thereupen moved fer a d

Teheran! for faire to prosecute, or in the alternative

tor an order confirming the award, parmant to both |

the United States Arbitration Act (8 U.S.C, @) and

the California Arbitration “Act (California Oede of

Civil Procedure 61288) and the federal common law

in this area of labor relation, Dowd Bor Co. v.

Coarters, 308 US. 502, GOT (1BG2);: that upon the

hearing of the order to show cause, cued caure ap-_

did not abuse its discretion in erm the dnl.“

Petitioners did not, after the dimmisnal order, srek

te avail themsarives of the provisions of Rule 60(b),

Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 18 U.S.C. which authorizes

mee thecdhetrict Court dimmigecd the action. it was not called

| — aaa tame eee

award

(

Ok. 7

Thin Court considered the genesis of Mute 41(%)

m Lank +. Webaskh Relroed Company, 37 US. 66

(1962), where it said ;

ARATE

; THI

11 1

init 10 110

Ry ite subsequent denials of certiorari im cases

raining related beaes, thin Court hax apparentiy pe-

zanted these pirmetples as ne longer apen te question,

Niall. Jie otablbed that an order of draenei!

fer want of presecution ix net te be dixturhbed on

- appeal if 4 ix “within the perwiosite range of the

another way, such order ix te be sustained “antes it

“amounted to an abuse of dineretion” (did. ).

Cf. Mervis +. Florida, 38 UR. GO (1968): Sentane

„ Ueeted States, 335 US. 848 (1968); Branfort Con-

r Company ¢. Atlantic States’ Constraction Co.,

[trial] court's dimeretion” (370 UUS, at 633); on, put

Be U.S. 1008 (1986).

trateen award).

*

WC of Appeal have eee and with

wut deviation followed the principien tnid down m

ek:

Nerond Cirew? : ;

Matoren +. Nn Kiern KK, Kobe, 5

Pd LUGE (2 Cir, LOMO); cork. Gem. TD US.

BRO (187);

r

banden) *

— — Banufactaring Co.,

32 P28 Or. we); 8

Wdmend v. Meore-MeCormack Linrs, 252 F

143 (2 Civ, 1958).

Theew (N

Kenarg v. ae

(3 Cir. 1967); cart. den. 399 U.S. mn: }

Torin v. Terare fac, 38 F.2d 28 (3 Cir.

1987).

Pip Civett: <

Mv. Reynolds Metal Co, 434 F.2d 1068 (5

Gr. ;:

rte v. N. A M. Wrecking Co, rn

629 (5 Cir. 1978). °

Righth („

Granewald v. Missoant Parifte Railroad Com-

pang, 331 F.2d S83 (8 Cir. 1968).

Ninth Corenet :

Alevander +. Pacific Maritime / sseciation, 434

P2d 281 (9 Cir. 1970) ;

States Steamalap Co. Philippine Airknes Co.

and Quntes Atrwags, 426 F.2d G83 (9 Cir.

1978) ;

| Rereeh ¢. Mvevident Necenitg lafr eee

N — — |

N rn

n

——— 9 — 2 *

We

dose. Dns l

Trwth (Wren .

Pend Ranket, tne, e Albertenn’s, beg, 406 U

SAT (te Cie, HRD),

Nhetien +. .

We Co. eee

R“ ,

Sb tee „ Wervhens Kmptegers Union lave.

Vo. pan, GR P28 Bee (1 Cin, URN): coat,

dem, 335 US, ORO (BRD).

New, additionally, Cette’? States ¢. Charters Krae Co. °

we FA WS eren and of., .

tC wited Stefre, 338 F.34 SOR SER (i Cir. 1968) and

Retewe v. Mone of Neagram, fer. 304 F234 GBT, GO

(Ch Cir, 1988). 2

Nn themecives concede that ‘'a court: has

u pewer te , an achen for want of di

gener in ite prosecution” and that euch a dheninnal

» “to the seund discretion of the trial

court” (Pea. for Oert., 11).

Tite three canes relied upon to aveid the applica- —

Tren at these amivemaliy recognised and salutary nile

te this case dp net sastai petitioners’ pasition.

iin Kgptek Co. vr. „„ Co., NT F. 267

(ED. Pa. 1914), plaintiff? brought it against a

dealer — — plant had

flee med the dealer manufacturer in anuther court,

where plamtt® was enjoined from meng the mann

factwrer’® cuhamers, ef which the defendant ia the

ponding case war one, Aftes the tnjunetion was re-

_verend by. an apprais court, the plaintiff @id wet im.

er further Mey im hin action agninat the

dealer but waited wntil be was awarded a preliminary

n agaist the manufacturer on May 23, 1904

Thereafter, on June 18, 1994, te then one month

later, be applied for a prefimmary mynectien against

the dealer, The deater reqqended by a motion te dix.

mie for want A which the conrt refined

te grant, [t. cerns clear that this art of Gierretion of

a @itrict court taken N veers age wader different

crreumetances and different rote. ne net any M for

reviewing here the Court of Apprnts’ afirmance of

the dintrict court's art of diseretien mm the instant

case,

Coleman v. een, 135 CaLApp. 78, 8

nen N App. 1994), also is neee That

care invelved the effertive date of an amendment te a_

ate watute requiring dienieeal wnder certain cir-

cumstances, The court explicitly stated: “That por.

tion of the section which authorignd the court te

Ghani: av action at its dixeretion ix not involved

herein . . .” (135 Cal.App. at 76, 96 Paccdd at 674)

and that “irrespective of the sections of the Ooede

invelved . . . , the rule [ix] reaffirmed that courts

have inherent power to dismisx actions where there

has been unreasonable delay in bringing the same to

trial.” (135 Cal.App. at 77, 26 Pac2d at 674).

CR