FI L ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 15 09 7 Non -Arg um en t Ca le nd ar
NLRB Nos . 15 -CA-1 53 50 15 -CA-1 53 88 W ILLIAM A. GREENE, a.k .a. Arno ldGreen e, CYNTHIA D. GREEN E, Pet it io ne rs Cro ss -Res po nd en ts , ve rs us NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Res po nd en tCro ss -Pet it io ne r.

Pet it io n fo r Rev ie w of a n Ord er an d C ro ss App li cat io n fo r Enfo rcem en t o f th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ard

(Ma rch 2 0, 2 00 9)Befo re BI RCH, DUBINA an d HULL, Cir cu itJu dg es .

PER CURI AM: Thi s ca se is be fo re u s o n p et it io n fo r rev ie w andcro ss -ap pl ic at io n fo r
en fo rcem en t o f an ord er o f th e Nat io na l Lab orRel at io ns Bo ard(“NLRB”). Th e
on ly iss ue pe nd in g i n t hi s p et it io n i s wh ethe r th e NLRB rea so nabl y de te rm in ed th atW il li am

A. Green e an d C ynt hi a Green e (“ th e Green es ”) fa il edto est ab li sh th at th e NLRB’s as so ci at e ch ie f ad m in is tra ti ve law ju dg e (“ ALJ”) ab us edhi s di sc ret io n b y

de nyin g t he ir m ot io n fo r co nt in ua nc e o f an Octo be r 30 , 20 02 , co m pl ianc e h eari ng . W e rev ie w forab us e o f di sc ret io n a n a dm in is tra ti ve law ju dg e’s refu sa l t o gr an t a h eari ng co nt in ua nc e. NLRB v. Mia mi Co ca -Co la Bot tl in g C o. , 36 0 F .2d 56 9, 5 76 (5t h C ir. 1 96 6)
. 1 Afte r rev ie win g t he reco rd , andread in g t he parti es ’ br ie fs , we con cl ud e th at th ere i s n o re ve rs ib le erro r. Int eres ti ng ly, inth ei r pe ti ti on , th e Green es do no t
co nt es t an y

po rti on of the sec on d s up pl em en ta l d eci si on an d o rd er i n wh ic h t he NLRB d et erm in edth atth ey were p ers on al ly liab le for th ei r co m

pa ny’ s b ackpa y

In Bonner v. City of

Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206, 1209 (11th Cir. 1981) (en banc) , we adopted 1 as bindingprec edent a ll of the dec isions of the former Fifth Circuit hande d down prior to Oc tober 1, 1981.
2ob li ga ti on . Mor eo ve r, th e ex actam ou nt s o f th os e o bl ig at io ns were p rev io us ly

en fo rcedby the D.C. Circ ui t Co urt o f App eal s i n Ca rp en te rs &Mil lw ri gh ts , Loc al Uni on 24 71 v. NLRB , 48 1 F .3d80 4 (D.C . Cir . 20 07 ). Henc e, th e NLRB req ue st s th atif we re

ject t he Green es ’ du e p ro ces s ar gu m en t, t he n t he NLRB is en ti tl edto
su m m ary en fo rcem en t o f it s o rd er i n fu ll
. Se e NLRB v. Dyn at ro n/ Bon do Co rp . , 17 6 F .3d13 10 , 13 13 n.2 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). On t he m eri ts of t he Green es ’ m ot io n t o c on ti nu e, th e NLRB fo un d t ha t t he Green es fai le d t o e st ab li sh th atth e ALJ ab us edhi s d is cret io n b y de nyin g the ir
m ot io n. Th e Green es ’ m ot io n t o c on ti nu e o nl y cla im edth atlea d c ou ns el ha d a n
un na m edsch edul in g c on fli ctonth e h eari ng da y an d t ha t t he Green es ha d in su ffi ci en t t im e to pre pa re a d efen se be cau se th e co m pl ia nc e sp eci fic at io n was 26 pa ge s l on g a ndco ve redba ckpay for11 8 e m

pl oyees. Th e ALJ d en ie d t he m ot io n, fin di ng th atth e Green es ha d n otest ab li sh edgo odcau se forde la y in g t he cas e, whi chha d b een act iv el y

li ti ga te d s in ce 1 99 9. Mo re s pe ci fic al ly, th e ALJ as se rte d th atGreen es ’ co un se l h adgi ve n n o p art ic ul ars reg ard in g h is ass ert edcal en da r
co nf li ct , no r ha d h e su gg es te d wh atis su es , if an y , com pl ic at edhi s h eari ng pr ep arat io n o th er t ha n t he len gt h o f th e co m pl ia nc e sp eci fic at io n. In a m ot io n fo r
reco ns id erat io n, t he Green es di d n otcu re t he ir e arl ie r de fic ie nc ie s. Im po rta nt ly, th e Green es di d app ear a t t he he ari ng , tes ti fie d, an d p uton a de fen se , rep res en te d
3by ano th er l awy er i n t he same law firm . Con se qu en tl y , th e NLRB fo un d tha t t he

ALJ d idno t ab us e h is di sc ret io n a ndth atth e Green es ’ du e p ro ces s ri gh ts were n ot vi ol at ed . W e ag ree. Mo reo ve r, th e Green es ha ve fai le d t o a ss ert- le t al on e es tabl is h - t he requi si te “po si ti ve sh owi ng of p reju di ce” n eed edto supp ort a f in di ng th atanALJ ab us edhi s d is cret io n. Se e Day li gh t Gr oc er

y Co . v. NLRB , 67 8 F .2d90 5, 9 10 (1 1t h C ir. 1 98 2) . Accor di ng ly, we de ny the Green es ’ pe ti ti onforrev ie w bu t g ran t th e cro ss -ap pl ic at io n fo r en fo rcem en t. PETI TI ON FOR REVIE W DENI ED, CROSS-APPLI CATIO N FOR ENFORCEMENT GRANTED.

4