Case Name: PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS & WIPERS ASS'N v. COASTWISE (PACIFIC FAR EAST) LINE
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1948-12-06
Citations: 171 F.2d 284
Docket Number: No. 12034
Parties: PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS & WIPERS ASS’N v. COASTWISE (PACIFIC FAR EAST) LINE.
Judges: Before: DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 171
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
PACIFIC COAST MARINE FIREMEN, OILERS, WATERTENDERS & WIPERS ASS’N v. COASTWISE (PACIFIC FAR EAST) LINE.
No. 12034.
United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit.
Dec. 6, 1948.
Gladstein, Andersen, Resner & Sawyer and Norman Leonard, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison and Robert E. Burns, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before: DENMAN, Chief Judge, and HEALY and BONE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Appellant, here on appeal from an interlocutory order, procured a valid order from the district court extending his time to docket the record with our clerk to September 10, 1948. On the next day appellant docketed the record. Appellee moves to dismiss the appeal because of the one day added to the 70 day period of our rules to reach joinder of issue on the briefs.
If the interlocutory order be reversed, there may be a saving of the district court's and the litigants' efforts and time. Had the appellant moved us on September 11, 1948, to docket but one day after his allowed time had expired, we undoubtedly would have granted the motion. The delay of the one day is a matter de minimis.
The motion is denied.