United States v. Yair Holtzman

give persons opportunity to the such the to file remanded for evidence corroborate (1) if treating finding disability person doctor’s of be for SSI the is within two older, opin the had not stated though cause other doctors months of or or looks as question disability. might ions on In Bil qualify he or she as a blind or dis- case, by’s examining psychiatrists, (2) person, all three abled and it is not clear that title consultant, including Secretary’s have ineligi- II him or her benefits would make opinion Bilby that stated their unanimous supplementary for or state benefits ble SSI lapse totally prior was of her disabled administered Administration. insured status. Under these circumstanc SSI, not file Where the claimant does for es, appropriate entry it to remand for is notice of the need to file to be sent ordering payment judgment of bene claimant, the Administration to the who fits, the uncontroverted medical testi since may preserve filing the title II date as the mony disability. total establishes filing by formally filing SSI date for SSI Harris, 625 F.2d 311 Cir. Johnson v. days benefits within 60 of the date of the (remand 1980) entry judgment for notice. pri favor of claimant where claimant made (1) In this case it is unclear whether Secretary ma facie case and failed rebut obligated the section 416.336a Administra- specific jobs claimant it or show which Bilby eligibility tion to inform of the SSI perform). could (2) so, did, requirements, if it whether (3) filing her whether June fell II remand, 60-day within the limit. On

SSI Secretary Benefits should resolve these factual is- sues to determine the date from which SSI Bilby contends that her SSI benefits benefits are to be calculated. should have been calculated retroactive to April July 1980rather than to 1980because judgment The of the district court April filing disability of her insurance reversed. case is remanded for en claim should construed as an have been SSI try Bilby in favor of and calcu government argues claim. The that lation of benefits.5 finding disability began only in ALJ’s that REVERSED and REMANDED. July makes this issue irrelevant. Because we conclude that the AU erred

Bilby expiration was disabled status,

of her insured we must address this

issue. (1979),

20 C.F.R. 416.336 in effect at application, provided the time of that oral America, UNITED STATES inquiries “may about SSI benefits be used Plaintiff-Appellee, filing applica- of an establish date if, alia, tion” the claimant filed inter

proper application days after the “within HOLTZMAN, Defendant-Appellant. Yair Security date of the notice the Social Ad- No. 84-5531. telling ministration will send of the need to Appeals, United States Court application.” file an Section 416.336a said Ninth Circuit. that, conditions, subject II to certain a title (disability) application was to be treated as Argued Sept. and Submitted 1984. inquiry an oral about SSI benefits. The Decided March 1985. regulation latter required that the Social (“Administration”) Security Administration

explain applicants require- to title II receiving

ments for benefits and that it SSI Bilby’s request attorney’s request presented fees under the such first be to the dis- must Equal premature. Any Access to Justice Act is trict court. Iizuka, Washington, D.C.,

Maria for A. plaintiff-appellee. James, Isken,

J. Eric & Los An- Graham Cal., geles, defendant-appellant. WALLACE, FLETCHER, Before REINHARDT, Judges. Circuit WALLACE, Judge: Circuit Holtzman, Alonim, formerly appeals from the district court’s denial of his mo- permanent injunction tion vacate a is- sued in a 1978 connection with 203(a)(1) that he section violated Act), (the Clean Air Act U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1)(section 7522(a)(1)). He seeks relief from the to the extent that importing prohibits it him from motor ve- hicles without certification of con- formity Air Act. the Clean The dis- with jurisdiction trict court exercised under § § U.S.C. and 42 U.S.C. 7523. We § jurisdiction have under 28 U.S.C. 1291. We remand. reverse and I of importing Alonim is in the business foreign-made for not in- resale automobiles in general tended distribution Unit- 7522(a)(1)prohibits ed States. Section importation into the of vehicles United they anti-pollution conform to States unless by standards set the Environmental Protec- (EPA). Agency tion imported vehicles ordi- Manufacturers narily EPA obtain certificates their vehicles acknowledging that conform to the standards before arrive in the United States. These manufacturers do certificates, obtaining not bother such how- ever, specialty imports brought for the few businessmen like Alonim. Section 7522(a)(1) allows of such ve- if, conformity hicles without certificates of only if, they imported conditionally but regulations in accordance with issued 203(b)(2) pursuant the EPA to section permanently Air The defendant en- U.S.C. Clean joined any importing and restrained from (section 7522(b)(2)). engines motor vehicles or motor vehicle im- regulations allow conditional Current the require- into the States unless importer promises bring portation if the ments of 19 C.F.R. 12.73 and 40 [§] speci- conformity into within a the vehicle through C.F.R. 85.1501 1509 are [§§] § 12.73(b)(x-xi), (c) C.F.R. fied time. 19 strictly to. adhered §§ (1984); 40 C.F.R. 85.1504-85.1509 entry Alonim consented to of a (1984). regulations require These also con- 7522(a)(1) judgment, second section importers post bond to secure ditional importing nonconforming time for thirteen § 12.73(c) (1984). compliance. If 19 C.F.R. during period vehicles which the first bring into importer fails vehicle pending. The case was district court fined time, conformity prescribed within $10,500 perma- him and issued an identical importer to United must return vehicle injunction. appealed nent Alonim never entry. port at the of 19 States Customs judgments. these § 12.73(c) (1984). do Failure to so C.F.R. always Alonim claims he understood id., bond, may the as result forfeiture of 1 paragraph injunction prevent of to penalties violation of the well as civil unlawfully importing any him from noncon- § (1984). If the Act. 40 C.F.R. 85.1508 vehicle, him, forming pursu- permitting but brings conformity, into importer the vehicle 2, paragraph import to ant nonconform- approval the EPA issues final to admit ing conditionally vehicles under bond as permanently vehicle into the United States. long complied strictly regu- as he § Id. 85.1504. governing imports. lations conditional Thus, interpreted paragraphs he these two 1978, that the district court found compliance. as alternative methods of intentionally Alonim violated section 1982, however, the EPA Adminis- October eighteen 7522(a)(1) by importing automo- trator, through Attorney, the United States into the that nei- biles United States were informed Alonim he paragraph viewed by conformity ther certificates of covered prohibiting importing any 1 as him from brought conformity spe- nor into within the nonconforming interpreted vehicle. He assessing cified time. In addition to civil 2 paragraph advising comply him to penalties $22,000 against him, the dis- regulations governing with permanent trict court issued a conforming vehicles. which, among things, enjoined other him as dispute, Because of this Alonim filed a follows: 1, motion or on December 1982 to correct en- permanently 1. The defendant is clarify injunction. the 1978 It was neces- joined importing and restrained from into sary reassign case new to a district any the United motor or vehicle judge. judge The new denied motion engine, selling vehicle offer- motor or or giving without reasons. Alonim did not introducing ing delivering for sale or or Instead, 4, 1983, appeal. on November Al- any into mo- for introduction commerce onim filed a motion vacate as void the engine, tor vehicle or motor vehicle disputed paragraphs two of the by which not covered certificate interpreted the because he court’s denial conformity by issued the Administrator clarify implicit accept- as an his motion Agency of the Environmental Protection government’s interpretation. ance of the States, pursuant to the of the United motion, judge The new district denied this amended, Air Act as 42 U.S.C. Clean again appeal giving without reasons. This § 1857 et seq. [current version at 42 followed. § seq.], 7522 et U.S.C. unless defendant II receives notice of the vehicle’s or conformity engine’s from the Environ- disputed contends that Alonim Agency. portions mental Protection should be set 724 void, pursuant 60(b)(4), Food,

aside as Drug to rule & Cosmetic Act which affords Fed.R.Civ.P., government’s ap power violations), because the cert. de to “restrain” nied, parently interpretation 290, 15 per favored would 382 86 U.S. S.Ct. L.Ed.2d manently (1965). engaging agrees bar him from in lawful 232 Alonim the Act autho activity. question judg violations enjoin Because of a rizes federal courts to one, ment’s legal argues voidness is a our plainly pro standard but he that it is de novo. See United States of review enjoining activity. hibits them from lawful Therefore, McConney, Cir.) F.2d because district court en — denied, (en banc), cert. U.S.-, joined importing him from vehicles condi (1984). tionally, S.Ct. as authorized section 83 L.Ed.2d 46 underlying regulations, argues and the he argument Alonim’s is without merit. judgment subject that its is void for lack of judgment merely “A is not void because it jurisdiction. matter Miller, Wright is erroneous.” 11 C. A.& A injunctive power federal court’s Federal Practice & Procedure at jurisdiction arises equity. from its (1973). There is no claim that Romero-Barcelo, Weinberger v. 456 U.S. jurisdiction district court lacked of the sub 305, 311-12, 1798, 1802-03, 102 S.Ct. ject Rather, parties. matter or of the Alo (1982). such, L.Ed.2d 91 As federal courts nim asserts that the district court acted depend upon specific delegation do not “plainly authority outside the conferred power injunctions to issue in cases over upon the court the Clean Air Act.” An which subject otherwise have matter argument can made that a be id. at jurisdiction. 313, 102 S.Ct. at void if plainly misinterprets a court the regard, Supreme the Court scope statutory grant jurisdiction stated, has many a statute in so such usurpation that there is a “[u]nless blatant words, necessary inescapable or Moore, and power. See 7 J. Moore’s Federal inference, jurisdiction restricts the court’s Practice H 60.25[2], at 60-226 to 60-228 equity, scope in the full (1983). jurisdiction of that Obviously, rarely this would occur recognized Id. at applied.” is to be and because necessarily courts have room in 313, (holding 102 S.Ct. at 1803 the interpret which to scope jurisdiction the injunction permissive issuance of an rath Id. The district court did not grants. al mandatory er than Congress unless ex plainly misinterpret scope of its dele otherwise), quoting pressly specifies Por gated power when it issued the Co., Holding ter v. Warner 395, 328 U.S. against Alonim. 398, 1086, 1089, 66 S.Ct. 90 L.Ed. 1332 Federal jurisdiction courts have to hear (1946). cases in which plain- the United States is a § tiff, 1345, 28 U.S.C. and the Clean Air reasonably The district court inter specifically grants Act juris- preted power 7523(a) federal courts its under section diction “to restrain issuing injunction, violations of possessed because it [the Act].” § 7523(a). Id. possible It is jurisdiction to “restrain” general subject over the suit’s merely by assessing penal- violations civil matter under 28 U.S.C. 1345. A federal ties, interpreting but most cases equity jurisdiction statutes court’s affords it jurisdictional grants power with similar have in- enjoin to activity otherwise lawful terpreted power including to restrain as necessary appropriate when and pub in the See, e.g., United power enjoin. to lic interest to dissipate correct or the evil Co., Gypsum See, States v. United States past 340 effects of e.g., unlawful conduct. States, 76, 88-89, 160, 169-70, 95 Ford Motor Co. v. United 71 U.S. S.Ct. 405 U.S. (1950) 562, (interpreting 8, 1142, L.Ed. 89 8, Sherman 573 & n. 92 S.Ct. 1149 & n. “prevent (1972); which authorizes courts to United States v. and 31 L.Ed.2d 492 Liquors Corp., violations, affording power 208, to United 210, restrain” 77 S.Ct. 1 Corp., v. enjoin); (Reed, States 1956); L.Ed.2d 32 Circuit Justice Vitasafe 864, (same (3d Cir.) Gypsum United States v. United 345 F.2d 870

725 Co., 88-89, at 71 at 169-70. liquidated U.S. S.Ct. sonable in case of damages de 7523(a) specifical- does Because section not cree extraordinary circumstances); and no ly power, Burkle, narrow this the district court (six- Clarke v. 570 F.2d at 831-32 issuing was not without year delay unreasonable). sub- not The facts ject jurisdiction enjoin analyzed matter Alonim’s are to determine whether the government otherwise lawful conduct. prejudiced by was delay, Burkle, Clarke v. 570 F.2d at and Ill good whether Alonim had a reason for failing sooner, to take the action McKinney argues Alonim in the alternative that the Boyle, 1091, 1093(9th Cir.1971). F.2d para- district court should have vacated Leniency appropriate also is when the graph injunction, pursuant chal to rules lenged judgment prospective. 60(b)(5) 60(b)(6),Fed.R.Civ.P., See Bros either as Co., Inc. v. Manufacturing W.E. Grace longer equitable prospectively no or as un- (5th Cir.1963). 320 F.2d just. 60(b)(5) We review decisions on rule (6) and motions an abuse discretion. presents This case an uncommon Bumb, Madsen v. 419 F.2d Cir. picture. factual opportuni Alonimhad two 1969). appeal judgments ties to he found offen presented adequate sive but reasons for A. failing in each instance to do so. He failed government claims that Alonim is appeal original judgment in 1978 precluded seeking relief from an because he understood the 60(b)(5) of discretion abuse under rules prohibit only his unlawful specifically because he did not in- upon vehicles. Based our reading of the voke them in the district court. The es- injunction, his conclusion was not unrea argument sence of its is that we cannot sonable. appeal he failed rule on whether the district court abused denial clarify of his motion to because he its discretion if that court did not have an assumed that the district implicitly court opportunity to exercise its discretion government’s had position embraced the first instance. We are convinced from the decided, therefore, and he injunc that the record and from the remarks of counsel at more, tion must be void. Once his conclu however, argument, oral that the district unreasonable, especially sion was not since judge 60(b)(5) (6) did have the rule judge gave the district no reason for his him, motions before and that he exercised Although decision. these errors regarding his discretion them. Clarke Cf. might person not suffice to excuse a under Burkle, 824, (8th v. 570 F.2d 831-32 Cir. circumstances, they different excuse Alo 1978) (rule 60(b) motions should be con- government nim preju because the was not broadly). sidered by diced his pro errors and because the examining the court’s exercise spective nature of the calls for discretion, initially we must determine leniency in interpreting the reasonable time brought 60(b)(5) whether Alonim his rule requirement. Although we are not un (6) and motions within a reasonable time. strong policy mindful of the in favor of Co., 622, Corn v. Guam 318 F.2d Coral Cf. Inc., finality, 610, Bros 320 F.2d at 1963)(no 632 Cir. outside time limit on specific support facts in this case our hold time). reasonable What constitutes reason ing brought 60(b)(5) that Alonim his rule depends able time on the facts each case. (6) and motions within a reasonable time. Penwell, 570, Washington v. 700 F.2d (9th Cir.1983) (four-year 572-73 delay not B. extraordinary unreasonable because of cir cumstances); Century-Fox analyzing Twentieth the merits of the denial of Dunnahoo, Corp. 1338, motion, identify unique Film v. 637 F.2d we first the (9th Cir.1981) (six-year 1341 delay setting unrea- involved when lawful conduct is

726 para- appropriate, because necessary and an advantage enjoined. in carefully limited time. graph in 1 is not law lies ordinary remedies at over Co., F.2d at 861. It has an 339 contempt. Under See Sandura judicial power years a may dispose of for six without in effect now injunction, a district court been para- summarily. Upon date. Because termination future of law fixed violations limited in appropriately has been vio- not showing graph that an 1 was immediately lated, duration, confine court abused its dis- can the district court monetary penalty vacating rule exact a not it under the offender or cretion weapon potent even 60(b)(5) prospectively inequitable. This is a from him. activity enjoined. only unlawful when IV

Moreover, although federal enjoin power to equitable courts have the alternative, argues In the Alonim juris activity they if have otherwise lawful injunction as interpret this that we should subject matter and general diction over the violating regu only him enjoining appropri necessary and injunction is if the section promulgated under lations to correct or dissi public interest ate in the striking paragraph 1 of out con past unlawful pate the evil effects 65(d), injunction pursuant to rule Fed. necessary or duct, power is not often Challenges injunction pur to an R.Civ.P. infrequently appropriate, and is therefore 65(d) are reviewed de novo. suant to rule commonly exer have exercised. Courts McConney, 728 F.2d v. See United States extraordinary power only in anti cised this at 1201. Co., cases, see, 405 e.g., Ford Motor trust 65(d) requires the lan Rule 8; 8, n. n. S.Ct. at 1149 & at 573 & 92 U.S. reasonably clear guage injunctions to be Liquors Corp., 77 v. United United States precise ordinary persons will know so that 210; v. at States United S.Ct. v. ly proscribed. See Wood what action 89, Co., 340 U.S. at Gypsum Commerce, Santa Barbara Chamber of 169, reason although we see no S.Ct. at (9th Cir.1983), Inc., F.2d when neces why it would not be available — U.S.-, denied, 104 S.Ct. cert. involving oth sary appropriate cases (1984). Injunctions not 79 L.Ed.2d 765 law. Even er areas of substantive however, 65(d), unless aside under rule set however, area, necessary and antitrust rea vague have no they are so against otherwise appropriate injunction meaning. v. sonably specific See Ford carefully limited in must lawful conduct be Cir.1971) (3d Kammerer, 450 F.2d unreasonably scope to avoid an time and curiam) obeyed (injunctions need be (per effect. punitive or nonremedial Sandura prohibited conduct only extent that to the (6th Cir.1964) FTC, 339 F.2d Co. Nevertheless, be reasonably specified). is limit). (fixing two-year strong policy clarity of behind cause of the determining an in whether 65(d), ambiguities or inconsistencies rule all against conduct junction otherwise lawful person subject in favor of the are resolved must necessary appropriate, a court is injunction. to the Id. irreparable weigh the economic harm and disputed paragraphs of The two against public injury to the defendant clearly ascertaina injunction each have caused continued violations detriment Unfortunately, meanings. continuing ble and definite probability viola Paragraph 1 directs activity they are inconsistent. lawful tions unless the associated first import vehicles without effectiveness of Alonim not enjoined, and the is also obtaining approval from the EPA that the of deterrence. other means anti-pollution EPA conform to Liquors Corp., 77 S.Ct. at vehicles v. United him Paragraph 2 then directs standards. determine whether the 210. need not We strictly any without implic import not to vehicles discretion in court abused its district regulations governing such following EPA injunction itly finding paragraph of this regulations para- graph prevent vehicles. cited was meant to Alonim from graph 2 only not advise to secure EPA using regulations how import that allow the (as approval importation before directed in non-conforming provided automobiles 1), paragraph give but also directions for brought arrival, upon into conformance the conditional of vehicles paragraph designed 2 was to force Alonim approval when EPA has not been comply regulations regardings govern- secured. Neither Alonim’s nor the Yet, he import. vehicles did even if the attempt paragraphs ment’s to reconcile the injunction open interpretation, is we persuasive. Only paragraphs one of the not, suggests, should as the majority sim- 65(d). light can Resolving stand of rule ply paragraph eliminate but rather favor, inconsistency in Alonim’s it should remand so injunction that the could paragraph would thus have to be 2. appropriately be clarified the district court. REVERSED AND REMANDED. I would therefore hearing. remand for a

FLETCHER, Judge, dissenting: Circuit I majority’s dissent from the view that paragraph

because 1 of the necessarily

unlimited in time it must be agree injunction against

vacated. I that an legal activity

otherwise should not be con- However, indefinitely.

tinued it should original purpose pre-

continue until its venting legal activity contributing Reynaldo TONGOL and Hosea Perkins illegal activity to the has been served. The L., on behalf of themselves and all oth record is a vacuum. There has been no similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appel ers hearing to determine whether Alonim has lees, importation practices conformed his to the requirements of the Air Clean Act or DONOVAN, Raymond capacity in his whether he has continued his blatant dis- Secretary Dept. Labor; of the U.S. regard importing nonconform- law— Kay capacity Rex in her Kiddoo as Di ing selling automobiles and them without rector, Employment California Devel bringing compliance. them into Because opment Department; California Unem the termination of the at this ployment Appeals Board; Insurance may premature, time I be would remand to Employment Development California allow district court to determine wheth- Department, Defendants-Appellants. er post-injunction Alonim’s behavior war- rants the continuance or discontinuance of No. 83-2432. injunction. light of the total ab- Appeals, United States Court of sence any record toas Alonim’s recent Ninth Circuit. compliance, possi- no other decision seems one, Alonim, including ble. No suggests Argued and Submitted Oct. 1984. that an ini- was not warranted April Decided tially. If the district in- court found the junction required, still was it could limit the

prospective application of the period.

some reasonable See Sandura Co. FTC, (6th Cir.1964). 339 F.2d disagree

I also majority’s view paragraphs fatally meaning inconsistent. The para-

intent of the are clear—

Case Details

Case Name: United States v. Yair Holtzman

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Date Published: Mar 12, 1985

Citation: 762 F.2d 720

Docket Number: 84-5531

Court Abbreviation: 9th Cir.