Community Electric Service of Los Angeles, Inc. v. National Electrical Contractors Ass'n

Good Law

869 F.2d 1235·13 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 743·131 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2408·1989 U.S. App. LEXIS 7824

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitMarch 6, 1989Nos. 87-6280, 88-5616 and 88-5663California5,948 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Wright, J.

This case involves the consolidation of three appeals from an antitrust suit with nine defendants. We must determine whether Community Electric Service, Inc. had the capacity to sue in federal court and whether its pleadings warrant Rule 11 sanctions.

FACTS

Community Electric, an electrical contracting company operating in Los Angeles County, bid successfully on a Palm Springs contract in an effort to expand its business geographically. It signed a letter of assent binding it to a collective bargaining agreement between the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW) Local 440 and Southern Sierras National Electrical Contractor’s Association, Inc. (NECA).

The IBEW Local 440 — Southern Sierras NECA agreement (termed “the Inside Wireman’s Agreement”) has a provision effectively imposing a $35 per day travel/subsistence payment on non-local contractors for each employee on a job. It applies to jobs begun before the contractor has maintained a permanent place of business within the jurisdiction for 90 days.

Community Electric contends vigorously that this provision has the purpose and effect of excluding non-local contractors. It claims that the provision sets prices…

concurrence Opinion

Wiggins, J.

concurring:

I concur in part I of the opinion and in the judgment affirming the district court. I write separately because I detect in part II of the majority opinion a tolerance of single, post-judgment motions for sanctions that accumulate all manner of perceived misdeeds occurring during the course of the litigation. Although a rigid rule prohibiting such motions in all cases may be inappropriate, we owe a duty to the bar to tilt the district courts away from such action. The majority opinion, in my view, does not do so.

The complaint by Community Electric was filed on January 13, 1986. It alleged violations of the Sherman Act, the Racketeer Influence and Corrupt Organizations Act and several related California state law claims. The complaint was proper in form and content and no challenge was then made to it by the defendants.

The powers, rights and privileges of the plaintiff, Community Electric, had been suspended by the California Secretary of State before the filing of this lawsuit. The defendants asserted that Community Electric lacked the capacity to sue. Community Electric thereupon acted to restore its capacity, shortly before trial but after the statute of…

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.

Parties

COMMUNITY ELECTRIC SERVICE OF LOS ANGELES, INC.--Cross-
Plaintiff
NATIONAL ELECTRICAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION, INC.--Cross-
Defendant

Judges

Norris
Wiggins
Wright

Cites (50)

817 F.2d 1448
386 F.2d 592
20 L. Ed. 2d 163
422 U.S. 66
48 Cal. 2d 338
791 F.2d 666
584 F.2d 326
797 F.2d 727
47 Cal. App. 3d 69
198 Cal. App. 3d 720
122 Cal. App. 3d 834
66 Cal. 2d 368
14 Cal. App. 2d 681
756 F.2d 769
38 Cal. 2d 119
616 F.2d 394
555 F.2d 687
437 U.S. 322
721 F.2d 657
562 F.2d 607
428 U.S. 106
783 F.2d 776
801 F.2d 1531
828 F.2d 616
796 F.2d 1165
98 L. Ed. 2d 390
838 F.2d 600
823 F.2d 1073
847 F.2d 90
780 F.2d 823
854 F.2d 1202
99 L. Ed. 2d 425
836 F.2d 1156
859 F.2d 705
356 U.S. 1
310 U.S. 150
678 F.2d 492
809 F.2d 626
435 U.S. 679
810 F.2d 898
602 F.2d 494
65 L. Ed. 2d 1131
612 F.2d 1105
831 F.2d 1503
861 F.2d 1440
614 F.2d 126
104 S. Ct. 1464
532 F.2d 674
50 L. Ed. 2d 309
774 F.2d 1371