Court Opinion

ID: 9455545
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 19:25:37.862392+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:38.395970
License: Public Domain

McENTEE, Circuit Judge
(dissenting in part).
I concur in that part of the court’s opinion which concludes that the plans in question are “goods.” I am constrained, however, to disagree with the court’s conclusion that defendant was engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce.
My difference with the court turns principally on the inference to be drawn from the admission that twenty-six percent of defendant’s jobs were billed out of state. At trial the defendant testified that “a lot of the plans were delivered in New Hampshire, whereas the bills went out of state.” In light of this uncontradicted statement, any inference of regular and continuous shipments in interstate commerce which might otherwise be drawn from defendant’s billing list is, in my view, rebutted. The only conclusion to be drawn is that some unspecified number of defendant’s plans were shipped in interstate commerce.
I in no way dispute the court’s statement that only a small proportion of interstate commerce brings an employer under the Act. Nevertheless, even small numbers of interstate shipments must occur on a regular, nonsporadic basis to result in coverage.1 Moreover, the government has the burden2 of showing the evidence relied upon to establish engage*230ment in the production of goods for interstate commerce with particularity,3 as decisions in cases of this kind depend heavily on “an analysis of the various types of transactions and the particular course of business * * * ” involved.4 Since I am unwilling to infer that defendant regularly shipped plans in interstate commerce, it is my view that the government has not sustained its burden. Accordingly, I would reverse and enter judgment for the defendant.

. Mabee v. White Plains Pub. Co., 327 U.S. 178, 181, 66 S.Ct. 511, 90 L.Ed. 607 (1946); Mitchell v. Household Fin. Co., 208 F.2d 667, 670 (3d Cir. 1953); see also Remmers v. Egor, 332 F.2d 103, 104 (2d Cir. 1964); Goldberg v. Worman, 37 F.Supp. 778 (S.D.Fla.1941).

. Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U.S. 564, 570, 63 S.Ct. 332, 87 L.Ed. 460 (1943).

. Id., at 571, 63 S.Ct. at 337.

. The burden of proof on issues of coverage is on the party asserting it. Anderson v. Mt. Clemens Pottery Co., 328 U.S. 680, 686-687, 66 S.Ct. 1187, 90 L.Ed. 1515 (1946); Jackson v. Airways Parking Co., 297 F.Supp. 1366, 1371 (N.D.Ga.1969); Wirtz v. Old Dominion Corp., 286 F. Supp. 378, 380 (E.D.Va.1968); Wirtz v. Durham Sandwich Co., 259 F.Supp. 710, 712 (M.D.N.C.1965), aff'd, 367 F.2d 810 (4th Cir. 1966).