# Opposition Brief — Antonioli v. Lehigh Coal & Navigation Co. > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0585%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Opposition Brief - **Published:** January 1, 1972 - **Citation:** 406 U.S. 906 ## Text fushema Court, B.S. Mare th Sf s : h £7 Be ‘ t MAR i” Iste IN THE ; / MAQHAEL pop: K, 3P, CLERK Supreme Court of the Unite States - October Term, 1971. ot : : No. 71-1102. RENO ANTONIOLI and ALBERT GIST, Individually and. on Behalf of Others Adversely Affected and THE SOUTH JERSEY TEXAS SEPLOTERS EEE, Putdioncrs, v. af LEHIGH COAL AND NAVIGATION COMPANY and LEHIGH & NEW ENGLAND RAILROAD, LEHIGH & NEW ENGLAND RAILWAY, THE CENTRAL RAILROAD COMPANY ‘OF NEW JERSEY, . one? Respondents. On Petition for a Writ of Certioréri to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. BRIEF IN OPPOSITION. Artuur R. Lirrietox, “ “Warren M. Lappon,” . 2107 The Fidelity Building, Philadelphia, Pa. 19109 Martruew J. Bropericx, a s 1600 Three Penn Center Plaza, 4 o ' . Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 ae Attorneys for Respondents. Morean, Lewis & Bocxtvus, : 3 Decuert, Price & Ruoaps, \ Of Counsel. a national, 711 So. 50th St., Phila., Pa. 19143—Tel. SA 7-8711 Area Code 215 we Se ee ete eee eee ‘OpINions BELOW Eee dy ete ecaceas Pee soe eomales os GouNTER-STATEMENT OF QUESTIONS -PRESENTED ...... ar CouNTER-STATEMENT OF STATUTES INVOLVED un wees tate (CounTER-STATEMENT OF .THE eer oc eeaath aeu ines ARGUMENT .....3...... ce Mee Meer pee Srrertae I. All of the Questions for Review Relating to the De- scription of the Class and the Treatment of Its Members Were Not Raised, Briefed, or Argued in the Courts Below and Are: Thus Barred From — Consideration. by. This Court .............. thts or The Actions of the Courts ‘Belew in Defining the | Class and Dealing With Its Members ‘Were Cor- a? rect and in No Way Violated Due Process’ of | St Beano AR ttre 7 oa PEO tact ee III. It Was Proper to Look to the State Statute of Limi- tations in Determining. eee the Claims Were Se eee eee oer A eon eer IV. Since the Petitioners Were Completely Affected | bed we . ee . oS ae athe aunt ee ee ee ee ae is : is Ss Brief in Opposition - agreements were invalid and that the plaintiffs were wrong- 3 fully deprived of severance pay. by, reason of their retire- ments under the invalid agreements. The District Court upheld the validity of the retirement agreements and. the Court of Appeals affirmed. Id. © _ : In 1964, the plaintiffs represented in en III insti- tuted -suit, accepting their retirement as. final and seeking Zz damages for breach of contract. By nem, that suit : - was dismissed without prejudice. ~. _ In 1965, the plaintiffs represented in Geait III in- stituted a third suit seeking the same damages as they had in the second suit, but raising a new theory alleging that in conflict with the 1961 order of the Interstate Commerce Commission. In August, 1968, the Court of Appeals below decided that plaintiffs’ claims were barred by the doctrine of res judicata. Clemens v. Central Railroad Company of —New Tersey, 399 F. 2a 8I5-(3a Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 393 U. §. 1023 (1969). On November 4, 1968, Reno Antonioli, by his attorney, and on behalf of others adversely affected, filed Counts _Iand Il of the instant suit.After certiorari was denied in Cleniens on January 13, 1969 (393 U. S. 1023), Count III was added to the complaint by amendment. | : Count I plaintiffs consist of a class of workers of the o Railroad on the January, 1959 payroll who were furloughed prior to the effective date of the consolidation, November 1, 1961 (Appendix t to Petition, 4a-5a). Plaintiffs in Count’ II consist of 22 former employees of Railroad who were retired at the time of the consolidation (Appendix to Peti- tion, 7a). Count III consist of the plaintiffs in the earlier ‘eases of Roberts and Clemens, supra. Plaintiffs in Counts I and II sought «an-injunction to compel arbitration of their claims for displacement and severance benefits under = IGC Protective Order. . ‘ a ee ee = din tire : 4 Sry Brief in Opposition . : ‘5 ' On Jannary29, 1969, petitioners’ motion for prelim- “inary injunction was denied... On March 6, 1969, petitioners’ :§ motion for declaratory judgment in Counts I and II was" E ' denied. _- - . «On.June 24, 1969, -pétitioners nioved for ‘Summary Judgment.’ ~ ‘ ‘On October 27, 1969, the District. Court idtala -that . within sixt(60) days petitioners ‘‘must finish all diseqvery.. ” [ . on the issue of’ whether this matter can be maintained as a . class actign under. Rule 28 of the Federal Rules-of Civil ' Procedure’’ and found atthe expiration of said sixty (60) F | _ days petitioners “‘must Specify « precisely: the class (they. . §- ‘ j 3 ' discovery, record i in this case.’’ Subsequently, petitioners filed a brief in support of the class action under Rule 23 in, which they tated that the péti- _ tioners in Count I numbered 569 persons; Count II ‘‘con- sisted of 22 men and Count ILI, 30 men’. In conclusion, - _ petitioners stated ‘‘that the requirements of Rule 2° nave been met to institute this as a class action. + ah On March 3, 1970, respondents filed their Motion for . Summary Judgment. mee = On December 30, 1970, the District Court found as a matter of law that petitioners’ claims in Counts I and IT a — 1. Petitioners’ brief in support of summary j , filed on - ' September 25, 1969, states inter alia “the disputes in ounts I and II are simply that some workers were furloughed in anticipation of the . transaction approved by the ICC and hence deprived of displacement ~ compensation, (Count I) and other workers were given less sation than that ordered by the ICC Order of September 26, 961 (Count II)”. See also opinion below, footnote 6 © Careet to Petition, 4a): _ 2."In a letter dated October 5, 1971, to the Court of haben stated : “Count 1 consists of §28 people on the pa the carrier atthe tne of he merger egies 4 : ee 6 - —_—__.._ Brief in Opposition were ‘“barred by time . . . whether the statute of limita- tions or the doctrine of laches is applied . .-. because it . . would be inequitable to require defendants to ‘defend _ against these claims’’ (Appendix to Petition, 26a).. With respect to Count II,’ the District Court also granted re- spondents’ motion for summary judgment beeause peti- tioners had knowingly waived their rights under the ICC. Order by signing releases in exchange for aan sum sever- ance benefits.® On November 30, 1971, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Order of*the District Court with respect to Counts I and II, and amended that Order to enter judgment for re-_ spondents on Count IIT (Appendix to Petition, 14a). 3. The District Court’s order of December 30, 1970, permitted * petitioners to amend their complaint to name.a Loree gary 2 esentative of Count II. Albert Gist was subsequently added. (Appendix to Petition, 29a). ,. | Brief in Opposition ee. ARGUMENT. | I. All of the Questions for Review Relating to the Descrip- - \ ss tion of ‘the Class and the Treatment of Its Members. ; .» ‘Were Not Raised, Briefed, or Argued in the Courts ; Below and Are Thus Barred From Consideration by This Court. — Tas , Petitioners. present a variety of arguments in which they allege that the District Court erred in its management — of this class action. Deferring for the moment considera- tion of the lack of merit in such arguments, this is the first - + mention ef the ‘‘class action issues’’ petitioners now seek 5 et: t} . C Q ti f. x } y t} . C ; . ‘i must have been urged and briefed in the courts below. Neely v. Eby. Construction Co., 386 U. S. 317, 330 (1967); | Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339, 362 n. 16 (1958) ; F ' California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553, 572 n. 2 (1957). Neither — _ the opinion of the District Court nor the opinion of the Court of Appeals everi mentioned ‘‘class action issues’’.* Furthermore, it cannot seriously be contdndet?’ that the . present case presents such ‘‘exceptional’’ circumstances as FE Enc. ; (la). (Letterhead of) : LAWRENCE J. RICHETTE ; Attorney at Law & 11th Floor 1420 Walnut Street | 4 | Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 ‘ _KIngsley 6-6500 LOetT P | ur es May 3,1971 Matthew J. Broderick, Esq. - . E 16th Fl, Three Penn Center Plaza f Philadelphia, Pa. 19102 3 Arthur R. Littleton, Esq. q 3 2107 The Fidelity Bldg.. ; ____.. __ Philadelphia, Pa.19109—____ "Re: Reno Antonioli, et al. vs. Lehigh - . Coal and Navigation Company, et al. : ; _ Gentlemen : | . You will find enclosed the appellants’ brief and appendix. .. 4 You will note that the appendix is somewhat different from : the original statement I mailed to you. 4 ————f fave not enclosed the Summary Judgment. Motion as T 7 thought that was superfluous and further, I have abandoned . | all of my Motions subsequent to the Judge’s Order of = December 30, 1970. : ; ' . Very truly yours, 7S ; L. J. Ricuerre. E | LJR :mkd on E --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385606_0585%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.