Document: 330 U.S. 695 67 S.Ct. 954 91 L.Ed. 1184 PYRAMID MOTOR FREIGHT CORPORATIONv.ISPASS et al. No. 41. Argued Oct. 22, 1946. Decided March 31, 1947. [Syllabus from pages 695-697 intentionally omitted] Mr. Charles E. Cotterill, of New York City, for petitioners. Deane Ramey, respondents. Justice BURTON delivered the opinion Court. This case presents two issues: 1 I. Was it reversible error Circuit Court Appeals, 2 Cir., 152 F.2d 619, to deny petitione § motion dismiss appeal, made on ground that appeal had not been docketed and transcript record filed within time specified in Rule 73(g) Federal Rules Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c? We hold was not. II. Under principles we have stated companion Levinson v. Specitor Motor Service, 649, 931, Appeals justified remanding present District entry a judgment under Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 201 seq., favor all respondents except Shapiro? should be remanded, but with directions proceed accordance this case. will include direction determine whether or activities each respondent consisted, wholly substantial part, class work which is defined by Interstate Commerce Commission Ex parte MC—2, M.C.C. 125, 133—134, as 'loader' freight an interstate common carrier motor vehicle, affecting safety operation vehicles foreign commerce.1 3 action begun 1942 City York, pursuant 16(b) Act.2 It sought recover unpaid overtime compensation services rendered petitioner six eight 'a delivery clerk 'push-boy", during various periods between October 24, 1938, September 20, 1941, computed 7 Act,3 together interest, liquidated damages attorney's fee. The removed United States Southern 59 F.Supp. 341. other there joined complaint like grounds. answered vehicle; labor performed 'consisted primarily (a) driver's helper loader;' that, respect them, power establish qualifications maximum hours service 204 Carrier 1935, 49 304, virtue s 13(b)(1) Act,4 Act did apply submitted court upon agreed statement facts.5 4 On November 29, 1943, declined status held 'open further action' order give opportunity question Commission. D.C., 54 565, 569. Pursuant respondents' they would so their requesting final disposition case, court, February 14, 1945, dismissed 'without prejudice.'6 After considerable delay filing Second affirmed dismissal Shapiro 'he 'helper' Commission's ruling at pp. 135, 136.' 622. As respondents, reversed costs remanded cause 'for allowance fee.' has questioned before us. 5 Because its importance interpretation granted certiorari, 327 774, 66 818, argued immediately A brief behalf Administrator Wage Hour Division, Department Labor, amicus curiae, jointly supporting position respondents.7 6 Notice dated April 2, 1945. In spite applicable provisions Procedure,8 no extension docket file record. July more than 90 days date first notice supported affidavit, secured Judge Augustus N. Hand extending 1, serve appeal. date, filed. promptly moved 73(a) Procedure,9 questioning especially right single member make 20. denied 10, Judges Learned Hand, Swan Clark speaking court. renewed hearing merits and, December 28, again, Frank 619. issue raised properly fully presented here. authority extend appears 15 court.10 That Rule, however, discussed counsel sustain taken 73(a), even without reference own 15. 8 principal argument against based court's opinion: 'In bar abuse discretion time, despite somewhat feeble excuses delay, since correctness judgment.' (Italics supplied.) 621. urged shows refusal substantiality rather 9 interpret sta ement recognition matter appropriate consideration connection circumstances It. intended place reliance sound Appeals. see reason exercised evidenced agreement five whom rpesented. Ainsworth Gill Glass & Fixture Co., 104 83; Mutual Benefit Health Accident Ass'n Snyder, 109 469; Burke Canfield, 72 App.D.C. 127, 111 526; Gallagher, 151 556. 10 Accordingly, denial 73(a). 11 merits, instructions enter Shapiro. remand modified. tried, jury, entirely facts pre-trial parties, approved Court, settling issues determined. For sake clarity, proceeded same basis treated though, This, interpreted necessarily restricting if, good cause, find advisable retry de novo.11 12 applied provided only he found excluded pay requirements because being 'employee 1935; * *.' 52 Stat. 1068, U.S.C. 213(b)(1), 213(b)(1). There thus remain determined respective either Parte 'loader,' commerce.12 13 classifications Commission, defining what comes jurisdiction Act. jurisdict on, both affirmatively negatively, follows: 14 '* power, 204(a) said part II, classes employees covered findings fact numbered above (mechanics, loaders helpers), such over any employees, drivers.' 139.13 these circumstances, occasion us refer nor suspend long delayed pending theCommission. done work. must simply who seek are benefits Section classification. special knowledge experience required affect carriers determination individual employee classfication judicial process. 16 applying respondent, whole come definition ofthe 'Loader'. determining activities, those shall concluded name may given his does, specific week spent activities. particular attention included kind 'loading' operation. contrast loading mere handling terminal, after loading, placing certain articles truck form trivial, casual occasional employee's relate limited described which, opinion, affects See also, McKeown California Freight Forwarders, 543. Except insofar drivers, mechanics, helpers, it, operation, disclaimed 17 If none alleged issue, according commerce meaning then true entitled hand, if do engaged 7. some, less some were receive does precise reserves decision them consequently, 18 reasons, vacated relates Shapiro, proceedings consistent opinion. 19 ordered. Vacated remanded. Spector 652, 933, note 2. 6. 5. 4. description petitioner: 'Item 3. northbound loaded into very early morning West 11th Street Terminal where new drivers took charge vehicles, called downtown helpers rode 38th Terminal. At terminal doors trucks opened mornings, driver remaining vehicles. pushed packages tailboards received plaintiffs (respondents) placed subterminal building. Still later mornings consignees Garment Center, generally using purpose hand-trucks flat trucks, manpower porpulsion. 'During stopping main change helper, by-passed pa ked one another alongside curbs Center. places unloading way sub-terminal hereinabove described, deliveries hand insides Center buildings. late afternoons evenings originating consignors locations 'picked up' next Philadelphia elsewhere south York. southbound operations these: Some picked up consignor's business hand-trucked sub-terminal. themselves did, due course, physically load waiting when loaded, journey went destinations also 'Other loadings stations public streets plaintiff's brought truck. consisted lifting often weights size stand inside bodies employee, stack pile vehicle. walked points occasionally thereby avoiding loss walking. plaintiff regularly fixed duty, August 1939 four daily. terminal. addition thereto devoted three half day office sub-terminal.' appearing 'Ordered hereby entered abating dismissing action, prejudice rights (respondents), bring actions establishment claims, administratively proper tribunal.' Walling Comet Carriers, 57 1018; 107, 109, certiorari granted, 326 716, 338, writ 328 819, 1007. Circuit, related 'four drivers' truckers pushers' employed Carriers transportation goods manufacturers contractors mostly intrastate trips near pushers, said: 'they functions commerce.' 1018, 1023. helpers. 'Proof worked 'some' 'occasional' warehouses chain stores production satisfy requirement amount substantial.' 111. 'Rule 73. Appeal '(g) Docketing Record Appeal. 75 76 appellate 40 appeal; district prescribe docketing, event cases docketing expiration period originally prescribed extended previous order; peal.' 308 752, 723(c), 723c. '(a) How Taken. When permitted law circuit appeals prescribed, party Failure appellant take steps secure review appealed validity remedies rule or, remedy specified, deems appropriate, appeal.' 749, 15, U.S.C.C.A., Circuit. 'Docketing Cases. '1. civil forty added judge ninety (Rule 73(g)). provided, refuse accept unless orders, thereof sitting. '2. hear grant motions appeals, otherwise taken, times subdivision hereof, showing affidavits, order, beyond control moving (b) deemed merely excusable neglect (c) act, grounds denial, stated. '3. failed comply rule, appellee argument, Clerk producing certificate wherein decree rendered, certifying duly allowed, proof days' writing served attorney application dismissal. No reinstated similar hereof.' U.S.Sup.Ct.Rep.Digest, L.Ed., Supp. 4, p. 55. tried 3rd May, parties hereto having appeared attorneys, lieu offering proof, setting forth framed complaint, consent attorneys thereupon herein whereby aforesaid, set answer, hereinbefore mentioned referred to, loaders, quoted text 17.

Category: 6