Opinion ID: 583596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Does the All Writs Act authorize Ballew's monetary obligation?

Text: 18 The All Writs Act authorizes federal courts to issue all writs necessary and appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a). The power conferred by the Act extends, under appropriate circumstances, to persons who, though not parties to the original action or engaged in wrongdoing, are in a position to frustrate the implementation of a court order or the proper administration of justice. United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. 159, 174, 98 S.Ct. 364, 373, 54 L.Ed.2d 376 (1977). We have explicitly recognized the availability of the Act to require an entity that was not a party to the underlying IBT litigation to take action deemed necessary to implement the Consent Decree. See Yellow Freight, 948 F.2d at 102-05. 19 Appellants contend that the All Writs Act can be used only to command some course of future conduct and cannot be used to impose a retrospective monetary obligation. The Act's reference to the authority to issue writs would seem to support the appellants' contention. The imposition of a monetary obligation is normally the office of a judgment, not that of an ancillary writ like the writs of scire facias, habeas corpus, mandamus, and prohibition, which were historically within the purview of section 1651. See Pennsylvania Bureau of Correction v. United States Marshals Service, 474 U.S. 34, 40-43, 106 S.Ct. 355, 359-61, 88 L.Ed.2d 189 (1985); United States v. New York Telephone Co., 434 U.S. at 172-74, 98 S.Ct. at 372-73; Labette County Commissioners v. United States ex rel. Moulton, 112 U.S. 217, 221, 5 S.Ct. 108, 109-10, 28 L.Ed. 698 (1884). Though we have recognized the use of the Act to order prospective relief in a variety of circumstances, see, e.g., Yonkers Racing Corp. v. City of Yonkers, 858 F.2d 855 (2d Cir.1988), cert. denied, 489 U.S. 1077, 109 S.Ct. 1527, 103 L.Ed.2d 833 (1989); Safir v. United States Lines, Inc., 792 F.2d 19 (2d Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1099, 107 S.Ct. 1323, 94 L.Ed.2d 175 (1987); In re Baldwin-United Corp., 770 F.2d 328 (2d Cir.1985), we have located no decision of this or any other court where the Act was relied upon to impose a retrospective monetary obligation upon a party not bound by a judgment. 20 The only case cited by the Government for the proposition that the reimbursement obligation is an appropriate exercise of the District Court's authority is Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U.S. 395, 66 S.Ct. 1086, 90 L.Ed. 1332 (1946). That decision appears to rest solely on an interpretation of the District Court's authority under section 205(a) of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, ch. 26 § 205, 56 Stat. 23, 33, 50 U.S.C.App. § 925(a) (1940 & Supp. V 1945), repealed by Act of July 25, 1946, ch. 671, § 1, 60 Stat. 664. In any event, at most, Porter upheld the District Court's power to require the return of money obtained in violation of a statutory limitation. By contrast, in the pending case Ballew is not alleged to have obtained anything from the Trust. The reimbursement order is not a traditional order of restitution of the sort normally issued by a court of equity, see Porter, 328 U.S. at 402, 66 S.Ct. at 1091, but instead is a command to Ballew to reach into his own pocket and pay to the Trust money to compensate it for the expenses he is alleged to have improperly caused it to undertake. An obligation of that sort is in substance a damage remedy, akin to a surcharge of a trustee. The Act does not authorize that remedy. 21 We would have a different case if the Government had invoked the Act to obtain from the District Court a prospective order requiring Ballew to take or refrain from taking some action in order to assure the effective implementation of the Consent Decree. The cease and desist obligation, for example, had it not become moot, might well have been considered a permissible use of the Act. Moreover, in rejecting the reimbursement order as a permissible use of the All Writs Act, we are not determining whether, in a proper suit brought by or on behalf of the Trust, Ballew could be required to reimburse the Trust. In such litigation, the issue of whether Ballew's fiduciary obligations permitted him to incur the disputed expenses can receive plenary consideration by a court exercising its jurisdiction to enforce the trustees' obligations, rather than by a court reviewing the enforcement of union election rules promulgated under a consent decree in litigation to which Ballew was not a party. 22 For these reasons, we dismiss as moot the appeal from all aspects of the District Court's judgment other than the reimbursement obligation imposed upon Ballew, and we vacate that obligation.