08-4 845 -ag, 08-516 5-ag

NL RB v . Doms ey T ra din g C orp. U N IT E D S T A T E S C O U R T O F A P P E A LS F O R T H E S E C O N D C IR C U IT SUM M AR

Y O RD ER
R U L I N G S B Y S U M M A R Y OR D E R D O N OT HA V E P R E C E D E N T I A L E F F E C T . C I T A T I ON T O A SUM M A R Y O R D ER FI LED O N O R AFTER JAN U A R Y 1, 20 07 , I S PER M I TTED A N D I S GO V ERN ED B Y T H IS C O U R T ’S L O C A L R U L E 3 2 .1 .1 A N D F E D E R A L R U L E O F A P P E L L A T E P R O C E D U R E 3 2 .1 . W H EN C I TI N G A S U M M A R Y O R D ER I N A D O C U M ENT FI LED W I TH TH I S C O U R T, A PA R TY M U S T C I T E E I T HE R T HE F E D E R A L A P P E N D I X OR A N E L E C T R ON I C D A T A B A S E ( W I T H T HE NO TATI O N “ S UM M ARY O RDER”) . A PARTY CI TI NG A S UM M ARY O RDER M US T S ERVE A CO PY O F IT O N A N Y P A R T Y N O T R E P R E S E N T E D B Y C O U N S E L . At a stated Te rm of the United States Court of A ppeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Daniel Patric k Moy

nihan United States Courthouse, 500 Pearl Street, in the City of Ne w York, on the 30 day

of June, two thousand and ten. th Present: AMALYA L . KEARSE,

RA LPH K . WI

NT ER, RO SEM AR

Y S. POO L ER, Circ uit Judg e s.

_____________________________________________________ NATI ONAL

LAB OR RELATI ONS BO ARD, Pe tit ion e r/ Cr os s- Re sp on de nt,

-v - (0 8 -4 8 4 5 -a g, 0 8 -5 1 6 5 -a g) DOMSEY TRADI

NG CORPORATI ON, DOMSEY F IBER CORPORATI ON and D OMSEY I NTERNATI ONAL

SAL ES CORP ORATI ON, A Sing le Employer, Respondent/Cross-Petitioner. Ap pe ari ngfo r P e tit ion e r/ Cr os s- Re sp on de nt: J EFF BARHAM (ROB ERT J . ENGLEHART, on the brie f) f or RONALD MEI SBURG, Ge nera l Counsel, National L abor Re latio ns B oa

rd , Wa sh ington , D .C. Appea ringfor Responde nt/Cross-Petit ioner:

PAULFRIEDMAN ( DONALD GAMB URG and AN THONYA. MI NGI ONE, on the brief), B lank Rome LLP, New Yor k, N.Y.2

Petition for enforc ement of a n order of the National L abor Relations Board (“N LRB”)

. ON CONSIDERATION WHE REOF, IT IS HEREB Y ORDERED, ADJUD GED, AN D D EC RE ED that th e NLRB ’s pe tit ion fo r e nf orc e me nt i s DE NI ED and Domsey Trading Cor p. ’s pe tit ion

fo r re vie w i s DI SM ISSED

. The NLRB see ks an orde r enf orcinga September

30, 2007 decision and order a nd a September 25, 2008 de cision and orde r aw ardingbackpa y ag ainst Domsey

TradingCorporation, Domsey Fiber Corporation and D omsey International Sales Corporation, a sing le employer (“D omsey

TradingCorp.”). D omsey TradingCorp. has filed a cross-pe tition for review . In light of the SupremeCourt’s decision in Ne w Proc ess S te e l, L .P. v . Na tio na l La bo r R e lation s B oa rd, No . 0 8- 14 57 , 2 01 0 WL

24 00 08 9 ( June17 , 2 01 0) , th e NLRB ’s pe tit ion fo r re vie w i s DE NI ED and Do mse y Tr a din gCor

p. ’s pe tit ion

fo r re vie w i s DISMISSE D as pre mature. See NLRB v. Tal ma dgePa rk, No. 09-2601-ag , 2010 WL2509132 (2d Cir. June 23, 2010). I f, af ter fur ther proce eding s befor e the NLRB, a ne w petition for enf orcement or petition for re view is filed, the Cle rk ’s Of

fi c e sh a ll r e fe r t

hepe tit ion

to t his pa ne l.

FOR THECOURT: Catherine O ’Ha g an Wolfe, Clerk