Fox Painting Company and Fox Painting and Decorating, Inc., Cross-Respondents/appellants v. National Labor Relations Board, Cross-Applicant/appellee
Docket: 92-6083
Court: Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit; February 9, 1994; Federal Appellate Court
The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) registered a judgment in the District Court enforcing an order against Fox Painting Company and Fox Painting and Decorating, Inc. (collectively “Fox”). Fox contested this registration, arguing that the District Court lacked authority under 28 U.S.C. § 1963 to register a Court of Appeals judgment. The Sixth Circuit agreed with Fox, concluding that § 1963 does not permit such registration, and reversed the District Court's ruling.
The background includes a series of decisions where the NLRB found Fox had committed unfair labor practices in 1982 by repudiating a pre-hire agreement with the International Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades. Following this, the Court enforced the NLRB's order for Fox to reimburse employees for lost wages. Additional backpay proceedings determined Fox's liability for backpay and other dues, leading to further enforcement actions by the NLRB.
In March 1992, the NLRB registered the Court's judgment from 1990 in the District Court, prompting Fox to file motions to stay enforcement proceedings and to vacate the registration. The District Court denied these motions, asserting its authority under § 1963, leading to Fox's appeal.
Federal district courts derive their authority to register judgments from 28 U.S.C. § 1963, which allows for the registration of judgments from other district courts and the Court of International Trade. A judgment can be registered by filing a certified copy in another district once it is final or for good cause shown. Registered judgments hold the same enforceability as those from the registering district court. The Board contends that the legislative history suggests an intent for all federal court judgments to be registrable, but the clear wording of § 1963 contradicts this claim. Prior to a 1988 amendment, the section only permitted district court judgments to be registered; the amendment included the Court of International Trade but did not extend to judgments from federal courts of appeal, indicating Congress did not intend to broaden registration to all federal courts. As such, the District Court lacked jurisdiction to register a judgment from a federal circuit court. Compliance with a court judgment does not require its registration; the Board can initiate contempt proceedings if an employer fails to comply with the terms of such judgments. Consequently, the District Court's judgment is reversed. Additionally, a letter from the AOUSC suggests that district courts may register circuit court judgments that are substantively identical to district court judgments under § 1963.
The circuit court judgment must fulfill criteria outlined in section 1963, requiring it to be a judgment for monetary recovery or property, and to be final either through appeal or the expiration of the appeal period. Fox has attempted to negotiate a settlement with the Board's Contempt Litigation Branch but faced refusals. To prepare for potential settlement, Fox has established an escrow account and is making periodic deposits based on its financial capacity.
Fox contends that the District Court's judgment denying its motions should be overturned due to (1) lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the labor dispute, and (2) the registration process violating 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2413, which governs judgments obtained by the United States. The court does not address these arguments, instead reversing the District Court's judgment on the basis of its lack of jurisdiction to register the court of appeals' judgment. The court determined that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2413 was not applicable in this case.
The authority for a federal district court to register judgments is found in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963, which permits registration of judgments from district courts and the Court of International Trade, provided they have become final. The Board argues that legislative history suggests federal court judgments should also be registrable, but the court finds the language of section 1963 clear and limiting to district courts and the Court of International Trade. The 1988 amendment merging provisions for the Court of International Trade into section 1963 indicates Congress did not intend for the section to encompass judgments from other federal courts.
The court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to register judgments from federal circuit courts and clarifies that an employer's compliance with a court judgment enforcing a Board order does not require registration in a district court. Board regulations allow for contempt proceedings if an employer fails to comply with such judgments. The District Court's ruling is thus reversed.
Fox Painting and Decorating, Inc. is identified as the successor to Fox Painting Company. The Board has submitted a request for judgment registration, including a letter from John L. Chastain, Assistant General Counsel at the Administrative Office of the United States Courts. The letter states that district court clerks may register circuit court judgments under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1963 if they are substantively identical to district court judgments eligible for registration. Such judgments must pertain to the recovery of money or property and must be final.
Fox has attempted to negotiate a settlement with the Board's Contempt Litigation Branch, but these efforts were unsuccessful. Following the Board's instructions, Fox has set up an escrow account and is making regular deposits to gather funds for settlement. Additionally, Fox contends that the District Court's judgment denying its motions should be overturned on two grounds: the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the labor dispute and that the registration process violates the mandatory requirements of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 2413 concerning the execution of judgments obtained by the United States. However, the ruling does not address these arguments, as the District Court's judgment is being reversed based on a lack of jurisdiction to register the court of appeals' judgment.
