Walls v. International Longshoremen's & Warehousemen's Union, Local 23
Docket: Nos. 99-35295, 99-35576, 99-35589; D.C. CV-98-05344-RJB
Court: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit; May 11, 2001; Federal Appellate Court
A group of longshoremen from the Port of Tacoma, Washington, appeals the district court’s dismissal of their action against the Pacific Maritime Association (PMA) and the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) for not operating a joint hiring hall per their collective bargaining agreement. PMA and ILWU also appeal the court's order granting an extension for the plaintiffs to file a notice of appeal. The court affirms its jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1291. The district court appropriately determined "excusable neglect" for the plaintiffs’ late notice of appeal, applying the test from *Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co.* and considering relevant factors without clear error. The court’s grant of summary judgment before the plaintiffs could conduct discovery was justified since the plaintiffs did not file a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(f) to request discovery, as established in *Brae Transp. Inc.*. The court correctly applied the six-month statute of limitations from section 10(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to the plaintiffs’ claims against ILWU and PMA, following precedent from *DelCostello v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters*. The plaintiffs’ reliance on *Reed v. United Transp. Union* was found to be inappropriate as it involved a different statute (LMRDA) and did not pertain to the joint hiring hall context. The dismissal of the plaintiffs’ RICO claims was upheld due to insufficient specificity in the allegations, which failed to meet the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The plaintiffs did not propose amendments to remedy the deficiencies, and the court deemed it clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment. Lastly, the court dismissed the plaintiffs’ ERISA claim because PMA and ILWU were not considered fiduciaries under 29 U.S.C. 1002(21)(A), as the pension plan is managed by trustees and not by PMA or ILWU. The court affirms the district court's orders in both appeal cases, with no further publication or citation permitted according to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.