Legal Document

383 U.S. 607 86 Supreme Court Reporter 1018 16 United States Reports Lawyer’s Edition 2d Series KF101.8 U54 131 Philip R. CONSOLO, Petitioner,v.FEDERAL MARITIME COMMISSION et al. Number 63. Argued Dec. 6 and 7, 1965. Decided March 22, 1966. [Syllabus from pages 607-608 intentionally omitted] Robert N. Kharasch, Washington, D.C., for petitioner. Richard Atlantic Posner, Federal Maritime Commission, pro hac vice, by special leave of Court. Judge Alton Boyer, respondent, Flota Mercante Grancolombiana, S.A. Mr. Justice WHITE delivered the opinion 1 We have been asked, in this case, to determine whether Appeals had jurisdiction set aside a reparation order Commission which was before it upon consolidated appeals shipper carrier, asking that award be increased carrier aside. In addition, we asked applied proper standard review when award. answer first question affirmative second negative. Accordingly, reverse. 2 (Flota) is common engaged carrying bananas South America States. July 1955, entered into an exclusive two-year contract with Panama Ecuador, banana shipper, gave Penama Ecuador option renew additional three years, subject its meeting rate offered any other shipper. This executed after Board, June 1953, ruled Flota's competitor, Grace Line, violated Shipping Act, 1916, §§ 14 Fourth1 First,2 refusing allocate shipping space equitable among all qualified shippers.3 April 1957, Board reiterated view Line Act signing contracts ordered offer shippers, fair basis, on forward-booking not exceed two years length.4 One month ruling rejected bid Consolo, competing entire honored given executing three-year contract. Shortly thereafter Consolo demanded 'fair reasonable' amount pursuant previous decisions threatened file complaint if demand were rejected. itself filed petition declaratory relief exonerating liability Consolo. followed damages. These proceedings and, June, 1959, Fourth First, fairly shippers.5 Pursuant § 2(c) Administrative Orders Review (64 Statutes-at-Large 1129, as amended, 5 Code KF62 1032(c) (1964 ed.)), petitioned District Columbia Circuit order. appeal stayed, pending determination reparations proceeding. 1961, pay certain violation Act.6 Both appealed each intervened other, together Board's finding Act. 3 The held consider these appeals. It affirmed but remanded issue so could 'consider whether, under circumstances, inequitable force * *.'7 On remand Commission8 concluded require reparations, although did reduce award.9 Again, both Circuit, consolidated.10 Again maintained too small argued should part or whole. reversed vacated award, concluding '(i)n substantial evidence showing would assess damages against favor abused discretion granted Section 22 Act11 (to awards) *.' 119 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 352, 342 Reporter, 2nd 924, 931. writ certiorari decision, granted. 381 933, 85 1764, 698. I. 4 Flota.12 As read controlling statutory provisions, seems clear Consolo's direct Commission's granting only requested. (5 1032 ed.)) gives courts 'exclusive enjoin, aside, suspend (in whole part), validity (c) such final orders are now judicial provisions section 830 Title 46 (§ 31 39 738, amended), turn, says that, 'except otherwise provided,' reviewable same procedures available 'in similar suits regard Interstate Commerce can bring proceeding challenge adequacy issued interstate he permitted course applicable maritime cases provision shall conducted rather than district courts. has previously denying shipper's claim at instance versus Comm., 337 426, 69 1410, 93 L.Ed. 1451, primarily because adverse wholly unreviewable unless appeal. See Rochester Tel. Corporation States, 307 125, 59 754, 83 1147. Likewise, D. L. Piazza company West Coast Inc., Cir., 210 947, cert. denied, 348 839, 75 42, 99 661, Second principles Comm. authority allowing seek major part, all, claim. think correct respect accordingly agree court below 7 appeal, much what said Co., 576, 1000, decided today, pertinent our consideration here. where sought may connection enforcement action 16(2) 30 737, provides enforce extends procedural advantages generally comparable those provided He wide scope venue; liable costs they accrue his own appeal; allowed reasonable attorney fees ultimately prevails; beneficiary broad service process joinder provisions; findings prima facie effect action. considered weaker party controversy serves important role protect preventing emasculating except readily apparent, think, holding himself Appeals. 8 Here, however, invoked who seeks increase find nothing prevent also considering request, either intervenor's cross-claim, reduced, result will not, view, substantially impair intended 30. 9 Concerning venue, still able select forum. Although venue governing somewhat different suit, relatively opportunities convenient 1130, 1033 enables petitioner suit circuit resides, principal office located Columbia. By requiring carrier's brought selected issues tried forum 10 benefit exempt him enable collect attorney's prevails.13 However, incur cross-claim attributable raised To extent arguments advance decrease asserted event defenses no incurred beyond normally assume And, prevails costs, fees, assessed losing 28 1912 ed.). Cir.R. 20(b). 11 minimal disadvantages resulting permitting attack more offset desirability prompt efficient Many might make defense advanced show reduced entirely. once intervenes parties interested complete resolution court. situation little sense break off argument short logical conclusion relitigate anew action.14 12 With properly there is, therefore, every reason permit litigate insist order, Act15 itself. If finally claims, then occasion separate claims going Appeals, binding subsequent shipper; nor basis accordance redetermine supported administrative record.16 Hence, need once, carrier. required damages, necessary incident decision place. 13 short, lose some forced defend conjunction losses substantial. disadvantaged, conscious choice made. And point certainly less assisted efforts obtain greater assist existing sustaining hear II. then, used 15 felt 'ignores weight App.D.C. 347, 926. ordering 'of (the reparations) inequitable.' Id., F.2d, effect, articulated case 'substantial evidence' 'the supports contrary reached must reversed.17 consistent Procedure 10(e) (60 243, 1009(e) reviewing 'set agency action, findings, conclusions found (1) arbitrary, capricious, (or) abuse (5) unsupported Cf. 91 178, 183—184, 198 958, 963—964, 344 893, 73 212, 97 691. defined 'such relevant mind accept adequate support conclusion.' Consolidated Edison New York National Labor Relations 305 197, 229, 206, 217, 126. '(I)t enough justify, trial jury, refusal verdict drawn one fact jury.' Columbian Enameling & Stamping 306 292, 300, 501, 505, 660.18 something evidence, possibility drawing inconsistent does agency's being evidence. Nevada Copper Corp., 316 105, 106, 62 960, 961, 1305; Keele Hair Scalp Specialists, Incorporated FTC, 275 18, 21. 17 Congress very deliberate adopting review.19 frees timeconsuming difficult task weighing expertise tribunal helps promote uniform application statute.20 policies particularly fashioning discretionary relief.21 area determinations frequently rest complex hard-to-review mix considerations. giving power fashion remedies, places premium expertise, sake uniformity, usually better minimize opportunity substitute their agency. damaged below. 18 Ordinarily inclined further light established Universal Camera 340 474, 71 456, 95 456; Walton Mfg. 369 404, 82 853, 829. already dates back eight twice hard apply instance, terminate now. O'Leary Brown-Pacific-Maxon, 504, 470, 483. 19 'The payment full complainant injury caused violation.' 821 (Emphasis added.) contemplates discretion,22 specify factors exercising discretion. validly enhance suffered compensable well factor culpability carrier.23 even conduct sufficient establish distinction feel record, whole, reparations. 20 determined, agreed, guilty 'unfairly' 'unjustly' discriminating 'undue unreasonable preference' First Act.24 essential undercut equities Nevertheless, believed, unsettled law, illegal exclude 21 Prior rejection request portion space, issue: supra, Banana Distributors, supra. invalid dealing precedents Circuit. time 1957 share authoritative pronouncements responsible administering interpreting remanded, reconsideration Circuit.25 good faith, reasonably believed presented physical differences between vessels owned Line. affirming record 'adequately supported' Grace's impressive.' 112 302, 307, 302 887, 892. Court's judgment one. took deliberate, substantial, risk gambled precedent distinguished. inhering 23 Nor do reveals almost years. place, until offending exclusive-dealing became sue anyway. Under justifiably skeptical about motives bringing suit. Further, indicates delay involved approval Flota. At rate, never law litigant absolved during litigation pending. Electric Vacuum Cleaner 315 685, 846, 1120; Louisville Nashville Sloss-Sheffield Steel Iron 269 73, 70 242. During postpone predictable demise discriminatory continued suffer injury. 24 Similarly, believe acquired 'equities' caught conflicting demands Ecuador. Not dilemma making, 1958 escape it. announced cancel rates. believing legal obligation rates, nevertheless perpetuate Finally, comply illegal. absolution depended declared, fact, illegal, 25 Finally reject policy excluding lost 'only' expected profits. There profitable multiple several shippers.26 advantage retaining taken equitably shippers. Furthermore, wrongly minimized sting profits unjustly illegally denied space. Such loss real Territory Mexico ex rel. McLean Denver Rio Grande 203 38, 48—49, 27 1, 2—3, 51 78; Roberto Hernandez, Arnold Bernstein Schiffahrtsgesellschaft, M.B.H., 116 849, sub nom. Compania Espanola de Navegacion Maritima, 313 582, 61 1101, 1539. 26 Without belaboring issue, suffice say conclude 'Flota initiated pursued unlawful act without cause satisfactory unable, noted, equity contentions viewed separately together.' so, error reverse reparations.27 Reversed. BLACK case. '§ Fourth. (No water shall) Make unfair based volume freight offered, unfairly treat discriminate matter (a) cargo accommodations facilities, due loading vessel tonnage; (b) landing condition; adjustment settlement claims.' 733, 812 First. (It water) give undue preference particular person, locality, description traffic whatsoever, prejudice disadvantage whatsoever 734, 815 F.M.B. 293 (1953). No report. 278 (1957). predicated theory 'susceptible carriage' carried terms carriage. 263 709. dropped 'susceptibility' evade requirements goods carried. 615 (1959). 280 790, 364 81 380, 365. 633, 641. 2, 1959. complied September 262. 311, 896. functions duties far transferred August 12, 1961. Reorganization Plan 840, 1111, note F.M.C. 635. None challenged, time, 'Any person sworn setting forth chapter water, chapter, injury, any, thereby. satisfied shall, investigate manner means, deems proper. within accrued, payment, day named, 736, Much jurisdictional Senate Report explaining expressly observed 'modeled closely interstate-commerce S.Rep.No.689, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., Page 13. That report counsels administration (interstate commerce) nearly years' experience (may) adopted slight modifications purposes Act).' 12. Unlike situation, here joined (thereby raising favorable become ensuring party), reviews considerations economy fairness lie behind doctrine ancillary jurisdiction, Moore Cotton Exchange, 270 593, 367, 750; Siler 213 175, 29 451, 53 753; Moore, Practice 8.07(5) (2d ed. 1965), intervenor right assert crossclaim independent grounds, 24.17 1963). Of course, resolved cease-and-desist discussion U.S., 594, n. 6, S.Ct., 1011. opinion, remanding said, 'But (as opposed law), confined restricted standard, seq., Annotated KF65 U5 1001 long line decisions, clearly indicate. See, e.g., 456 (1951); Carolina Freight Carriers 475, 489, 722, 971 (1942). examined mind.' 309, 894. reviewed made reference apparently asserting proceeding, novo Hobbs authorize absence specific authorization, presumed. Davis, Law Treatise 29.08 (1958). Carlo Bianchi 373 709, 715, 1409, 1413, 652; Morrison-Knudsen O'Leary, 288 542, 543—544. enactment defining words 29.02. test acted. 483, 490, 462—466, 456. Trade Mary Carter Paint 382 46, 219, 128; Southland 201 244, 246. 'primary doctrine.' Far East Conference 570, 574—575, 72 492, 494—495, 96 576; Navigation Cunard Steamship Ltd., 284 52 247, 76 408. generally, Stason, 'Substantial Evidence' Law, 89 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1026 (1941). Seven-Up Bottling Miami, 344, 287, 377; Securities Exchange Chenery 332 194, 207 209, 67 1575, 1582—1583, 1995; Phelps Dodge Corp 177, 845, 1271. Security Administrator Quaker Oats 318 218, 63 589, 87 724, considerable deference promulgation rules Food, Drug, Cosmetic Skips A/S Viking 432. Johnston Seed 90 F.Supp. 358, aff'd 191 228; Boston Wool Assn. Director General, I.C.C. 282, where, avoid inequitable, practices carriers prospectively. Delaware, Lackawanna Western Coal W.R. 506, 509. 'confer board Later on, 'make proper, including Ibid. 'beyond question' 'unjust' 'unreasonable.' 'entitled neither rendered just.' 308, 892—893. distinguish affirmatively relies declaration, later reversed, specifically authorized behavior. Arizona Grocery Atchison, Topeka Santa Fe 370, 183, 348. operating manager testified 'it deal (shipper) three.' settle Ecuador's shipment '2.4% low percentage comparison usual 15% deduction applies type transportation.' Because disposition unnecessary objection counsel participated writing remand, 1004 ed.) Public Counsel Hearing Examiner (although issue) defended contention merit.

Classification Label: 8