NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SAMSON TUG AND BARGE CO., INC, No. 24-5730 D.C. Nos. Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:20-cv-00108-TMB 3:20-cv-00248-TMB-MMS and

MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL, MEMORANDUM*

AFL-CIO,

Plaintiff,

v.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND

WAREHOUSE UNION, ALASKA

LONGSHORE DIVISION;

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND

WAREHOUSE UNION, UNIT 222,

Defendants - Appellees.

SAMSON TUG AND BARGE CO., INC, No. 24-6017 Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No. 3:20-cv-00108-TMB v.

INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND

WAREHOUSE UNION, ALASKA

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

LONGSHORE

DIVISION; INTERNATIONAL

LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE

UNION, UNIT 222,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Alaska Timothy M. Burgess, Circuit Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 15, 2025 Anchorage, Alaska

Before: GRABER, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Samson Tug and Barge Company brought claims under the Labor

Relations Management Act against Defendants International Longshore and

Warehouse Union, Alaska Longshore Division and Unit 222. Plaintiff appeals

from the summary judgment entered in favor of Defendants. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Donnell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762,

769 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

1. Defendants are entitled to a complete defense as to Plaintiff’s claims

under the work preservation doctrine. See NLRB v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n,

473 U.S. 61, 81–82 (1985) (holding that when the objective of an agreement and

the purpose behind its enforcement is “work preservation,” the union does not

violate 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B) or § 158(e)(6)); Int’l Longshore & Warehouse

Union v. NLRB, 978 F.3d 625, 637 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a “valid work

2 24-5730 preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of

section 8(b)(4)(D) . . . ”).

Here, the longshore work conducted at the Womens Bay terminal falls under

the purview of the All-Alaska Longshore Agreement (“AALA”) because the

terminal is owned by Matson Navigation Company, which is an employer that is a

signatory to the AALA. The AALA provides that Defendants’ members “shall

operate all cargo handling equipment on facilities owned or operated by Signatory

Employers for movement and handling of the cargo/equipment on behalf of the

Employer . . . and [n]on-signatory employees shall not operate any cargo handling

equipment on facilities owned or operated by Signatory Employers beyond an area

designated and agreed to jointly by the parties.” (Emphasis added). Moreover,

Defendants’ members had in fact performed work at the terminal for two years,

before pursuing arbitration. Accordingly, Defendants’ pursuit of arbitration was

for a valid work preservation purpose.

2. The district court erred by denying as moot Defendants’ motion for

Rule 11 sanctions, without considering the motion on the merits. An entry of

summary judgment does not render a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions moot.

See Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2016)

(“Even where one issue in a case has been rendered moot, others may remain.”).

3 24-5730 AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for

additional proceedings consistent with this disposition. The parties shall bear

their own costs on appeal.

4 24-5730