Case Name: L. A. CONCRETE PUMPING, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leo A. MAJICH et al., etc., Defendants-Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1973-07-12
Citations: 483 F.2d 524
Docket Number: No. 73-2189
Parties: L. A. CONCRETE PUMPING, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leo A. MAJICH et al., etc., Defendants-Respondents.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 483
Pages: 524–527

Head Matter:
L. A. CONCRETE PUMPING, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Leo A. MAJICH et al., etc., Defendants-Respondents.
No. 73-2189.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
July 12, 1973.
Dissenting Opinion Aug. 14, 1973.
Stuart H. Young, Jr., Hill, Farrer & Burril'l, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Wayne Jett, Los Angeles, Cal., for def endants-respondents.
Before HASTIE, CHAMBERS and WALLACE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This court declines to suspend the order of the district court dissolving the state court injunction which had been issued before removal.
Most or all of the acts restrained by the state court have already been accomplished. In order to provide effective relief now, some mandatory affirmative commands would have to be decreed. This, in our opinion, would put us in direct conflict with 29 U.S.C. § 104. We, to some extent, accept prior state action as valid in a case after removal to a federal court, but at least when we must re-cut the whole cloth we believe we are precluded by federal statutes from doing so in this case.
If either party desires to expedite the appeal, he may move to do so, proposing a schedule of necessary steps.