N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C U IT NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS B OARD, Pe t i tione r,
v. TEAM STER S UNION LOC AL NO.70, INTER NATIONAL B R OTHER HOOD OF TEAM STER S, C HAUFFEUR S, W AREHOUSEM EN & HELPER S OF AM E R IC A, R e sponde nt. No. 71-01092 NLR B No. 20-C C -1008 ORDER *

NATIONAL LAB OR R ELATIONS B OARD, Pe t i tione r,
v. TEAM STER S UNION LOC AL NO. 70, INTER NATIONAL B R OTHER HOOD OF TEAM STER S, C HAUFFEUR S, W AREHOUSEM EN & HELPER S OF AM E R IC A, R e sponde nt. No. 82-07451 NLR B No. 32-C C -509 

# FIL ED

AUG 22 2016 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U

. S

. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria t e for public ation a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.On M otion to M odify Judgm e nts of This C o urt Enforc i ng Orde rs of the Nationa l La bor R e lations B oa

rd A rgue d a nd Subm itte d

August 12, 2016 San Fran c isc o , C a lifornia B e fore : HAW KINS an d GR AB ER , C irc uit Judge s , a

n d SELNA, * * Distric t Judge
. Te am ste rs Union Loc a l No. 70 (" Union" ) ha s m ove d for re lie f from se ve ra l of our judgm e nts pursua

nt to Fe de ra l R

ule of C ivil Proc e dure 60(b). Unde r R ule 60(b), a pa rty se e king m odific ation " be ars the burde n of e sta blishing tha

t a signific ant c ha

nge in c irc um sta

n c e s wa rran ts re vision of the

de c re e ." R

ufo v. Inm ate s of Suffolk C ty . Ja il, 502 U.S. 367, 383 (1992). The Union a rgue s tha t the Supre m e C ourt’ s opinion in R e e d v. Town of Gilbert, 135 S. C t. 2218 (2015), is a signific ant c ha

nge in c irc um sta

n c e s tha t wa rrants re vision of our judgm e nts. W e disa gre e and de ny

the m otion. W e a ssum e , without de c iding, tha t R e e d c ha nge d the Supre m e C ourt’ s First Am e ndm e nt jurisprude nc e in som e re spe c ts. B ut it did not do so in a wa y tha t
m atte rs he re . Whe n fa c e d with a c o nstitutiona

l c ha lle nge , the Supre m e C ourt ha s not disturbe d the Nationa l La bor R e lations Ac t’ s prohibition a g a i nst pe a c e ful
se c o nda ry pic ke ting. NLR

B v. R e ta i l Store Em

ps. Union, Loc a l 1001, 447 U.S.

** The Honora

ble Ja m e s V. Se lna , Unite d State s Distric t Judge for the C e ntra l Distric t of C a lifornia , sitting by de signa tion. 2607 (1980). TheC ourt ha s re c o gniz e d tha t pic ke ting m ight ha

v e a c oe rc ive e ffe c t, not e ntitling it to full First Am e ndm e nt prote c tion. Se e B ake ry & Pa stry Drive rs Loc a l 802 v. W ohl, 315 U.S. 769, 776 (1942) (Dougla s, J., c o nc urring) (" Pic ke ting by an orga niz e d group is more tha

n fre e spe e c h, sinc e it involve s patrol of a pa rtic u la r loc a l ity and sinc e the ve ry

pre se n c e of a

pic ke t line m ay

induc e a c tion of
one kind or a

n othe r, quite irre spe c tive of the ide a s whic h a re be ing disse m inate d." ). R e e d, in re sult a

n d ra tiona le , doe s not ne c e ssa rily unde rm ine the se c a se s. The re fore , we are not fre e to disre ga rd the Supre m e C ourt’ s pic k e ting-spe c ific jurisprude nc e . Se e Agostini v. Fe lton, 521 U.S. 203, 237 (1997) (" [I] f a pre c e de n t of this C ourt ha s dire c t a

pplic ation in a c a se , y e t a ppe ars to re st on re a sons re je c te d in som e othe r line of de c isions, the C ourt of Appe a ls should follow the c a se whic h dire c tly c ontrols, le aving to this C ourt the pre rogat ive of ove rruling its own de c isions." (inte rna l quota tion m arks om i tte d )). B e c a u s e the Union ha s e sta

blishe d
no re le va nt c ha nge in la w, we m ay

not re vise our pre vious judgme nts. Ac c ordingly , the m otion is D E NIE D
.

3