Document: 415 U.S. 423 94 S.Ct. 1113 39 L.Ed.2d 435 GRANNY GOOSE FOODS, INC., et al., Petitioners,v. BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS & AUTO TRUCK DRIVERS LOCAL NO. 70 ALAMEDA COUNTY, etc. No. 72—1566. Argued Jan. 8, 1974. Decided March 4, Syllabus Petitioner employers brought suit in California state court alleging that respondent Union was engaging a strike breach of collective-bargaining agreements. The issued temporary restraining order on May 18, 1970. Two days later the case removed to federal court, and June 4 District Court denied Union's motion dissolve order. Strike activity then stopped labor dispute remained dormant until Union, after petitioners had refused bargain, resumed its November 30, Court, petitioners' motion, held criminal contempt for violating Appeals reversed ground expired long before 1970, reasoning under both law Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(b) no than 7, 20 issuance, rejecting contention life indefinitely prolonged by 28 U.S.C. § 1450 'until dissolved or modified district court.' Held: 1. Whether Rule is controlling, date alleged contempt, since State Code Civil Procedure returnable 15 from date, if good cause shown, must be unless party obtaining it proceeds submit preliminary injunction, similarly, 65(b), such an expire own terms within 10 entry, shown. Pp. 431—433. 2. Section not intended give injunctions greater effect removal they would have should construed manner consistent with time limitations 65(b). 443—440. (a) Once has been law, including Federal Rules Procedure, controls future course proceedings, notwithstanding orders prior removal. underlying purpose (to ensure lapse will occur simply removing court) policies reflected (stringent restrictions availability ex parte orders) can accommodated applying rule pre-removal remains force longer but event limitations, measured 435—440. (b) Accordingly, 10-day limitation applied removal; hence violated when at time. P. 440. 3. Court's denial did effectively convert into injunction unlimited duration. 440 445. That may opportunity heard merits moved controlling factor, burden show were entitled not. 442—443. Where intends supplant order, which expires duration pending final decision further issue clearly saying so, where done against whom reasonably assume 65(b)'s limits. Here, only entered denying reason believe issued. 443—445. 472 F.2d 764, affirmed. George J. Tichy, II, Spokane, Wash., petitioners. Duane B. Beeson, San Francisco, Col., respondent. Mr. Justice MARSHALL delivered opinion Court. 1 This concerns interpretation 1450,1 provides pertinent part: 'Whenever any action United States . (a)ll injunctions, orders, other proceedings shall remain full Superior reversed, one judge dissenting, contempt. 764 (CA9 1973). reasoned 527 issuance. rejected court,' holding statute 'is prevent break could otherwise jurisdiction being shifted,' 767, 'create special breed survive beyond span imposed spring granted them initiated Id., 766. 2 As this understanding conflict decisions two Circuits interpreting preclude automatic termination orders,2 we certiorari, 414 816, 130, 38 49 (1973). Finding ourselves substantial agreement analysis Ninth Circuit present case, affirm. 3 * On 15, Granny Goose Foods, Inc., Sunshine Biscuits, filed complaint county Alameda respondent, local Teamsters officers agents, national agreements recently negotiated multiunion-multiemployer bargaining teams. Although exact nature unclear, basic contours are as follows: unwilling comply certain changes introduced new contracts; believed legally bound because part multiunion units contracts;3 wanted negotiate separate contracts petitioner employers. same day filed, enjoining all existing ordering defendants 26, why during pendency suit. An amended adding Standard Brands, prohibition activities directed toward employer. 5 19, having served scheduled hearing cause, individual proceeding arose 301 Labor Management Relations Act, 1974, 61 Stat. 156, 29 185.4 20, 1970 petition take account 18. 6 Simultaneously filing petition, sole support lacked maintain Sinclair Refining Co. v. Atkinson, 370 195, 82 1328, 8 (1962), 301's grant courts over suits between unions agreements, Norris-LaGuardia 47 70, 104, barred issuing allegedly violation containing no-strike clause. 7 remand waived their right submitting court. employers' came 27, bench. With respect dissolve, attention our certiorari Boys Markets, Inc. Retail Clerks 396 1000, 90 572, 24 492 (1970), interpreted indication re-examine Sinclair. Markets argued here April refrained taking received guidance 1, handed down 398 235, 1583, 26 199, overruling enjoin nostrike clause arbitration agreement. Three later, brief citing Markets. Evidently picketing 4. flame rekindled, however, 9, sent telegrams requesting arrive expressing continued belief groups. answered there need bargain because, view, unresolved, commenced once again. 9 next hold A following day. argument grounds. First, concluded earlier gave continuing effect. Second, found itself continue affirmatively Concluding willfully fine $200,000.5 II Leaving aside moment question whether clear Procedure,6 issued, dissolved.7 Similarly, 65(b),8 11 Petitioners argue, keeps To extent reading inconsistent contend control. 12 In fully serves purposes, yet places harmony important congressional 13 At outset, find basis turn limited designed deal unique problem shift middle arises whenever cases purposes served. Judicial economy promoted providing so pleadings example, duplicated court.9 addition, ensures interlocutory protect various rights parties upon Thus attachments, sequestrations, bonds, undertakings, securities, obtained effective 14 But while Congress preserve effectiveness removal, believing After 'takes up left off.' Duncan Gegan, 101 810, 812, 25 L.Ed. 875 (1880). 'full effect' provided more court.10 More importantly, settled rather governs implies much recognizing court's authority modify resolved ago Ex Fisk, 113 713, 724, 1117 (1885). There deposition witness binding reconsidered inconsistency statutes governing procedure courts. contention, said predecessor 16 'declares afterwards removed, recognizes power latter orders. And enact made affected might affect mode trial had, change express directions act subject. 17 'The his progress governed removed; advantages escape examination, he benefit rightfully removed.' 725—726, S.Ct., 729—730. 18 See also King Worthington, 104 44, 652 (1881); Freeman Bee Machine Co., 319 448, 63 1146, 87 1509 (1943). 19 By token, protections like provisions govern 81(c).11 note although durational now codified rule, origin Clayton Act 1914, 737. House Report recommending enactment emphasized, thought necessary cure serious 'ill-considered without notice.'12 stringent 17, 65,13 reflect fact entire jurisprudence runs counter notion taken reasonable notice sides dispute. doubt circumstances, cf. Carroll President Commissioners Princess Anne, 393 175, 180, 89 347, 351, 21 325 (1968), restricted serving preserving status quo preventing irreparable harm just hearing, longer.14 We exception broader, longstanding policy restricting 1450—ensuring court—and easily rule: does removal.15 Applying simple. days, therefore III 22 that, apart operation 1450, converted out hand, stating '(t)he unsuccessful effort died natural death estop relying certificate.' F.2d, 767. reach essentially conclusion. 23 indicated earlier, Procedure. establishes whereby move short who Situations arise parties, themselves position evidence legal arguments injunction. course, proceed application sought, seeking bear demonstrating factors justifying injunctive relief, likelihood injury success merits.16 situations prepared do intend appropriate issues raised postpone still generally, C. Wright A. Miller, Practice Procedure: 2954, p. 523 (1973 ed.). think plain cannot considered record either treated 27 attempt Likewise, defense timely withdrawal unit negotiating contracts. n. 3, supra. indicate undertaking far tell, never addressed equitable involved considering remanded remove appearing want holding. accept factor place coming forward presenting contrary, '(i)n notice, set earliest possible comes and, order.' Even intention manifested form. issuance decides accompanied findings conclusions law.17 stated Second Circuit: given serve extend period (Rule 65(b)) effective. (Rule) contemplates result adjudication, i.e., extension stay.' Pan American World Airways, Flight Engineers' Int'l Assn., 306 840, 842 1962) (footnotes omitted). Sims Greene, 160 512 (CA3 1947). 30 exemplifies, penalties befall those injunctions. principle built 65 receive fair precisely drawn what actually prohibits.18 31 judicial potent weapon. When founded decree too vague understood, deadly one. responded danger requiring frame obey know require means forbid. most fundamental postulates forbid imposition penalty disobeying command defies comprehension.' International Longshoremen's Assn. Philadelphia Marine Trade 389 64, 76, 88 201, 208, 236 (1967). 32 It countenance procedures guess about so. limits 33 Since neither nor six months issued.19 violate, erred judgment reversing adjudication 34 Judgment 35 REHNQUIST, THE CHIEF JUSTICE, STEWART, POWELL join, concurring judgment. 36 I agree affirmed, respondent's contemptuous conduct occurred. join portion lays 'rule' involving us. my announcement itself. 37 persuasively demonstrates see nothing language legislative history '(a)ll normal expiration law. concededly early June, actions December constituted none occurring converting subsisting indefinite Those markedly different certainly new, independent existence. Having much, disposed it. goes on, devise 40 '(a)n removal.' Ante, 439—440. (Footnote omitted.) 41 determination mere previously past original makes quite unnecessary discussion contained Fed.Rules second devised seems contrary specific 1450. 42 apparently bases observation 'respondent Court.' While premise probably recommend matter practicality common sense, gives hint rules practice first instance automatically incorporated terms. says 'shall 'rule,' effect, even though 43 likely interest limiting exemplified protected incompatible terms.2 Such specifically dissolution modification showing, way unlikely many procedure, primarily designed, all, provide suitable frustrate procedural actions, contemplated comparable rare condition obtains, surely asking litigant 44 Therefore, subscribe fashions type, concur conclusion violate time.3 Title 1450: States, attachment sequestration goods estate defendant answer rendered 'All security valid effectual Appalachian Volunteers, Clark, 432 530 (C,6 1970), cert. denied, 401 939, 91 936, 219 (1971); Morning Telegraph Powers, 450 97 (CA2 1971), 405 954, 92 1170, 231 (1972). Herald Hopkins, F.Supp. 1232 (NDNY 1971); Peabody Coal Barnes, 308 902 (ED Mo. 1969). subject National Board. Airco Industrial Gases, 195 N.L.R.B. 676 From proceeding, appears 1964 trucking industry representatives group locals supplemental covering areas. Agreements 1967—1970 31, Negotiations committees multiemployer groups contract 1970—1973 began January February April. 29, committee approved each Some thereafter, nationwide referendum vote members conducted determined employees ratified claimed letter 28, employers, informing Board ultimately negotiations begun attempted withdrawal. We, view issue. Avco Corp. Aero Lodge 735, 390 557, 1235, 126 301(a) initially designated forum federal-question delineated 1441. Three-fourths conditioned failure end hours one-half 48 hours, one-fourth 72 hours. rest point, suggesting violated, willful. finding willful obviously presupposes knowledge evidently expired. Prior commencing November, informed through attorney 'not understand file presently forbids Local employer, pressing contract. economic become ineffective virtue statutory duration, 'Accordingly, pending, outstanding assertion claims. .' App. 67. (Supp.1974) provides: 'An verified complaint, affidavits other, satisfactorily sufficient grounds exist therefor. copy affidavits, granted, must, served, therewith. 'No opposite party; party, appear facts shown affidavit great applicant notice. contingency above specified, business admit of, or, ready least used points authorities application; ready, fail authorities, herein required, defendant, entitled, continuance period, desire it, enable him meet may, response relating granting thereof. returnable, precedence matters calendar day, except older character, cases, law.' strictly See, e.g., Smith 64 Cal.App. 722, 222 857 (1923); Sharpe Brotzman, 145 Cal.App.2d 354, 302 P.2d 668 (1956); Oksner 229 672, Cal.Rptr. 621 (1964); Agricultural Prorate Comm'n 154, 85 898 (1938). argue applicable operative adverse party. indicate, telephonic counsel sought documents arranged courtroom presented behalf hearing. 527, kind informal 'must ..' (Emphasis added.) thus meaningful prepare informal, same-day case. supported some sort attending, felt ruling 15-day limit 527. event, infra, 437—440. given. 1966 Amendments certify writing efforts, any, written oral attorney, adopted recognition hastily preferred all. Advisory Committee's Note, U.S.C.App. 7831, F.R.D. 124—125. desirable substitute thorough requirements satisfied obtain potentially required 65(a) oppose opposition. 161 suffice. Bailey Transportation-Communication Employees 45 444 (ND Miss.1968). 2949, 468 ed.), five-day-notice requirement based 6(d). '(b) Temporary Restraining Order; Notice; Hearing; Duration. 'A (1) immediate injury, loss, damage opposition, (2) applicant's certifies reasons supporting claim required. Every indorsed hour issuance; forthwith clerk's office record; define notice; exceed fixes, fixed extended consents period. record. takes character; days' shorter prescribe, hear determine expeditiously ends justice require.' Madron Thomas, 177 Tenn.1965); Murphy E. I. du Pont De Nemours 999 (WD Pa.1939); Borton Connecticut Gen. Life Ins. 579 (D.C.Neb.1938). Of repleading cases. Foust Baltimore O.R. 817 (SD Ohio 1950); Shall Petroleum Stueve, 879 (D.C.Minn.1938). expressly attachments sequestrations effected post-removal treatment dependent provision controlled matter, additional statement long-settled prejudgment remedies seizure person property secure satisfaction entered. 64. applies well. If anything, therefore, supports generally supra, 1024, 108—110, cited. H.R.Rep. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., (1914). 381 (1940 repealed Revision 1948, 62 997, covered 65. 308, 80th 1st A236 (1947). 840 1962); Smotherman 186 (CA10 implicit 'the character illustrations suffice clarify Day 13, Where, 2, 12, Robert W. Stark, Jr., New York Stock Exchange, 466 743 1972); Crowther Seaborg, 437 1969); Garlock, Seal, 404 256 (CA6 1968). 52(a) 'in refusing forth constitute action.' permitted forth, invalid. Mediation Bd. Air Line Pilots 116 U.S.App.D.C. 300, 323 305 (1963); 65(d) 'Every every terms; describe detail, reference document, acts restrained disposition 199 5-day Norris-La Guardia 107. relevant reads: All Indeed, prohibitions motion. expiration. occasion casual speculation, opinion, conduct, 'willful.' time, useful speculate sufficiency defunct

Category: 8