John Rogers v. Alaska Steamship Company

Good Law
290 F.2d 116
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitApril 4, 196116862_1California9,990 words

Opinion

Opinion on Rehearing

On Petition for Rehearing

An opinion affirming was filed herein on January 27, 1961. Appellants have petitioned for rehearing, contending among other things that we should have dealt on the merits with the class action aspect of this case. As we stated in the opinion of January 27, 1961, class actions were pleaded in the third and fourth counts of the original libel. These counts were dismissed by orders of November 16, 1956, and February 12, 1957. Appellants argued that this was error.

We did not deal on the merits with the initial dismissal of any of the four counts of the libel, holding that libelants did not stand thereon but elected to amend. With regard to counts three and four, in which class actions were sought to be stated, a further explanation is appropriate.

The claims stated in these counts sought recovery for the benefit of a stewards’ department health and welfare trust fund and a stewards’ department pension trust fund. These are common funds of which stewards’ department employees and their families are the sole beneficiaries. The relief sought under counts three and four was to require appellees to contribute to those trust funds a percentage of the additional…

Lead Opinion

Hamley, J.

This is a suit in admiralty brought by and on behalf of seamen to recover additional wages and contributions to certain trust funds on the alternative theories of quantum meruit or unjust enrichment. The district court entered a final decree severing the claim of one of the libelants and dismissing the action as to all other libelants. The latter now appeal, raising questions concerning abuse of discretion in dismissing the second amended libel, the necessity of findings of fact and conclusions of law, the joinder of parties and causes, and the appropriateness of class suits in admiralty.

This case is an outgrowth of labor conditions which existed in the maritime industry on the west coast from June 19, 1952, through mid-October 1955. Immediately preceding June 19, 1952, the National Union of Marine Cooks and Stewards was recognized by the Pacific Maritime Association 1 as the exclusive bargaining representative of the unlicensed personnel serving in the various stewards departments of west coast vessels. For the forty-month period beginning June 19, 1952, however, these employees were hired and worked pursuant to the terms of a consent decree of this court.

During this period…

Opinion

290 F.2d 116 John ROGERS et al., Appellants, v. ALASKA STEAMSHIP COMPANY et al., Appellees. No. 16862. United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit. Jan. 27, 1961, Rehearing Denied April 4, 1961. Rubin Tepper, McMurray, Walker & Tepper, Allan Brotsky, Richard A. Bancroft, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants. James L. Adams, Gary J. Torre, Lillick, Geary Wheat, Adams & Charles, San Francisco, Cal., proctors for appellees, American Mail Lines, Pacific Far East Lines, Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Co., Pope & Talbot, Pacific Transport Lines, Inc., States Steamship Co. Pacific Argentine Brazil Line, Inc. Alvin J. Rockwell, John M. Naff, Jr., Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison, San Francisco, Cal., proctors for appellees Matson Navigation Co., The Oceanic Steamship Co., and Oliver J. Olson & Co. William R. Wallace, Jr., William R. Ray, Maynard Garrison, Wallace, Garrison, Norton & Ray, San Francisco, Cal., proctors for appellee, Grace Lines, Inc. Peter N. Teige, George D. Wick, Jr., San Francisco, Cal., proctors for appellee American President Lines, Ltd. Richard Ernst, San Francisco, Cal., Richard G. Logan, Oakland, Cal., proctors for appellees Coastwise Line, Et al.…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.