International Longshore & Warehouse Union v. ICTSI Oregon, Inc.
863 F.3d 1178
| 9th Cir. | 2017Background
- ICTSI operated Terminal 6 (Port of Portland) and was subject to a West Coast CBA administered by the PMA (employer association) and ILWU (union). A dispute arose over whether reefer (refrigerated-container) work at Terminal 6 belonged to ILWU or IBEW.
- The Joint Coast Labor Relations Committee and an arbitrator ruled the work belonged to ILWU; ICTSI claimed its lease with the Port precluded assigning that work. ILWU/PMA threatened fines and other enforcement actions.
- ICTSI filed an NLRB §10(k) proceeding; the NLRB awarded work to IBEW. While the NLRB and subsequent challenges proceeded, ILWU and PMA sued ICTSI under §301 to enforce the CBA; ICTSI counterclaimed under the Sherman Act (Sections 1 and 2), alleging a conspiracy to monopolize longshore work and various anticompetitive enforcement acts.
- The district court stayed most claims pending NLRB resolution but granted ILWU/PMA’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion dismissing ICTSI’s antitrust counterclaim with prejudice, holding among other things that the conduct was immunized by Noerr-Pennington and the nonstatutory labor exemption; entry of partial final judgment under Rule 54(b) followed.
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed: it upheld the Rule 54(b) entry as permissible, found ICTSI had antitrust standing to sue, rejected ICTSI’s sham-litigation argument on these facts, and held the nonstatutory (implied) labor exemption barred ICTSI’s antitrust claims because the challenged conduct was tied to mandatory collective-bargaining subjects and was within the scope of the Mackey test.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (ICTSI) | Defendant's Argument (ILWU/PMA) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 54(b) partial final judgment | Entry was improper; issues overlap and partial judgment causes piecemeal appeals | Antitrust claim presents distinct, complex legal issues suitable for immediate appeal | Affirmed: district court did not abuse discretion; issues were discrete and complex so Rule 54(b) was permissible |
| Standing to challenge PMA-benefit conspiracy | ICTSI (a PMA member) lacked standing to challenge conspiracy benefiting PMA | ICTSI alleged direct injury from enforcement acts (e.g., sham suits, fines), meeting Big Bear test | ICTSI has antitrust standing because it alleged injury from practices used to enforce the conspiracy |
| Noerr-Pennington / sham litigation exception | ICTSI alleged ILWU/PMA filed sham suits to coerce ICTSI; Noerr immunity should not apply | ILWU/PMA contend their suits were nonfrivolous and thus immune | Dismissal affirmed: ICTSI failed to plead a pattern of objectively baseless suits; individual §301 suit was arguably warranted at filing and not objectively baseless, so Noerr immunity applied |
| Nonstatutory (implied) labor exemption (Mackey test) | ICTSI: illegal labor-law violations (e.g., §8(e) hot-cargo/secondary boycott) remove immunity; exemption shouldn’t shield anticompetitive conspiracy | ILWU/PMA: challenged conduct arises from collective bargaining, concerns mandatory subjects (work assignments), and was bona fide bargaining — so exemption applies | Affirmed: Mackey factors satisfied (primarily affects parties; concerns mandatory bargaining subjects; bona fide bargaining alleged). Illegal conduct tied to mandatory bargaining does not automatically defeat the exemption (Richards reconciliation). Nonstatutory exemption bars the antitrust claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Big Bear Lodging Ass’n v. Snow Summit, Inc., 182 F.3d 1096 (9th Cir. 1999) (standing where plaintiff alleges injury from practices used to enforce an anticompetitive conspiracy)
- Professional Real Estate Investors, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Indus., 508 U.S. 49 (U.S. 1993) (sham-litigation test and two-step Noerr analysis)
- Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 518 U.S. 231 (U.S. 1996) (scope of nonstatutory labor exemption; relation of conduct to collective-bargaining process)
- Connell Constr. Co. v. Plumbers & Steamfitters Local Union No. 100, 421 U.S. 616 (U.S. 1975) (limits on nonstatutory exemption where anticompetitive effects extend beyond wage/working-condition concerns)
- Richards v. Neilsen Freight Lines, 810 F.2d 898 (9th Cir. 1987) (illegal labor-law agreements do not automatically fall outside the nonstatutory exemption if harms are tied to collective-bargaining subjects)
- Phoenix Elec. Co. v. Nat’l Elec. Contractors Ass’n, 81 F.3d 858 (9th Cir. 1996) (adopting Mackey test framework in Ninth Circuit)
- Mackey v. Nat’l Football League, 543 F.2d 606 (8th Cir. 1976) (formulation of three-part test applied to labor exemption analyses)
- Atlantic Richfield Co. v. USA Petroleum Co., 495 U.S. 328 (U.S. 1990) (antitrust standing/antitrust injury principles)
- United Mine Workers of Am. v. Pennington, 381 U.S. 676 (U.S. 1965) (background on implied labor exemption from antitrust law)
- Prof. Real Estate Investors / Amarel line: Amarel v. Connell, 102 F.3d 1494 (9th Cir. 1996) (pattern-of-sham-proceedings guidance)
- California ex rel. Harris v. Safeway, Inc., 651 F.3d 1118 (9th Cir. 2011) (en banc) (limits on exemption where conduct is not approved or regulated by labor law)