Court Opinion

ID: 2964416
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:25:18.190755+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:55.419909
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                              [Not for Publication]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

          No. 96-1105

                               CHARLES LANGONE ET AL.,
                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                 WILLIAM WALSH, INC.,
                             d/b/a William Walsh Movers,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                     ERRATA SHEET

               The opinion of  this Court  issued on November  20, 1996  is
          corrected as follows:

               On p.3, line 1 change "the" to "that"

                                [Not for Publication]

                            United States Court of Appeals
                                For the First Circuit

                                 ____________________

        No. 96-1105

                               CHARLES LANGONE ET AL.,
                                Plaintiffs, Appellees,

                                          v.

                                 WILLIAM WALSH, INC.,
                             d/b/a William Walsh Movers,
                                Defendant, Appellant.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

                         [Rya W. Zobel, U.S. District Judge]
                                        ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Stahl, Circuit Judge,
                                        _____________
                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________
                              and Lynch, Circuit Judge.
                                         _____________

                                 ____________________

            Paul E. Stanzler, with whom Maria E. Recalde  and Burns & Levinson
            ________________            ________________      ________________
        LLP were on brief, for appellant.
        ___
            Matthew E.  Dwyer, with whom John  F. Farraher,  Jr., Christina C.
            _________________            _______________________  ____________
        Duddy, and Dwyer & Jenkins P.C. were on brief, for appellee.
        _____      ____________________

                                 ____________________

                                  November 20, 1996
                                 ____________________

                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.   The  New England  Teamsters
                      LYNCH, Circuit Judge.
                             _____________

            and  Trucking  Industry Pension  Fund  and  the Teamsters  25

            Health Services  and Insurance Plan ("the  Health Plan") sued

            William Walsh,  Inc. ("WWI") to recover  sums admittedly owed

            to the Fund and Plan by  Charles Walsh, Inc. ("CWI"), a  now-

            defunct  moving company.  The Pension  Fund has since settled

            with WWI, so that only the Health Plan remains party to  this

            litigation.    The Health  Plan's theory  is  that WWI  is an

            "alter  ego" of CWI within the meaning of the pertinent labor

            law  doctrines and so is responsible for the debt.  That debt

            is in  the sum of $243,737, exclusive of interest.  CWI is no

            longer in operation  and apparently has no  assets to satisfy

            the obligation.

                      The   parties  filed  cross   motions  for  summary

            judgment  before the district court.   The material facts are

            not in dispute.   It is the inferences and  legal conclusions

            to be drawn from  the facts which are in contention.   United
                                                                   ______

            Paperworkers Int'l  Union, Local  14  v. International  Paper
            ____________________________________     ____________________

            Co., 64 F.3d 28,  31 (1st Cir. 1995)   No claim is  made that
            ___

            the  district court applied the wrong law. The district court

            (Zobel, J.)  entered summary judgment for  the plaintiffs and

            against WWI  on the alter  ego theory.   Langone v.  C. Walsh
                                                     _______     ________

            Inc., 864 F. Supp. 233 (D. Mass. 1994).  We review the matter
            ____

            de novo.  United Paperworkers, 64 F.3d at 32.
            __ ____   ___________________

                                         -2-
                                          2

                      We  affirm  on the  district  court's well-reasoned

            opinion.   Local  Rule 27.1.   We add only  the following few

            thoughts.   We recognize  that these  "alter ego"  cases have

            serious consequences  for each  party  to the  dispute.   The

            cases  are  largely  fact-driven, and  general  statements of

            doctrine go only  so far.   In NLRB  v. Hospital San  Rafael,
                                           ____     _____________________

            Inc.,   42  F.3d  45  (1st  Cir.  1994),  we  noted  that  in
            ____

            determining alter ego status the NLRB and courts have:

                      considered a range of  criteria including
                      the  similarity between  the old  and new
                      companies  in   relation  to  management,
                      business  purpose, operation,  equipment,
                      customers  and  supervision,  as well  as
                      ownership.   In  most  cases,  a  further
                      important factor in determining alter ego
                      status  is whether the  alleged alter ego
                      entity  was  created  and  maintained  in
                      order to avoid labor obligations.

            Id.  at 50.   We  have also  noted that  "[n]o one  factor is
            __

            controlling  and all need not be present to support a finding

            of alter ego status."   C.E.K. Indus. Mechanical Contractors,
                                    _____________________________________

            Inc. v. NLRB, 921 F.2d 350, 354 (1st Cir. 1990).
            ____    ____

                      Here there is strong evidence of similarity between

            the old and new companies in that there is common management,

            an identical business purpose, and substantial similarity  in

            operations.   These similarities  are compounded by  the fact

            that  despite nominally  separate ownership,  CWI essentially

            provided WWI  with free equipment (trucks  and company cars),

            free  use of office and warehouse space,  and free use of its

            service mark.

                                         -3-
                                          3

                      As  we  said  in  Hospital San  Rafael,  anti-union
                                        ____________________

            animus  is  not  always a  sine  qua  non  of an  "alter-ego"
                                       ____  ___  ___

            finding.  Hospital San Rafael, 42  F.3d at 51.  But this case
                      ___________________

            does  not test  the "reasonable  limits," id.  at 52,  of the
                                                      ___

            Hospital  San  Rafael  doctrine because  there  is sufficient
            _____________________

            evidence here to infer anti-union animus from the sequence of

            events  (although  this evidence  is  not as  strong  as that

            recited earlier pertaining to  the similarity between the old

            and new companies).   These facts are sufficient to  make out

            an alter-ego case, although WWI's arguments on this point are

            far from frivolous.1

                      We acknowledge the able  briefing and advocacy  for

            both sides here.  

                      For these reasons, we affirm.  No costs.

                                
            ____________________

            1.  Of far less merit is WWI's alternate argument that the
            collective bargaining agreement which WWI eventually signed
            with the union somehow bars the claims of the Health Plan. 
            For one thing, the Plan was not a party to this agreement. 
            In addition, the agreement on its face is silent on the
            question of liability for past claims.  And finally,
            collective bargaining agreements by their very nature govern
            prospective relations between the parties.  We decline to
            ___________
            read in a waiver of past claims absent any indication in the
            agreement itself that the parties intended it to address such
            matters.

                                         -4-
                                          4