Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. ICTSI Or., Inc.
United States District Court for the District of Oregon
January 17, 2019, Decided; January 17, 2019, Filed
Case No. 3:12-cv-1058-SI
OPINION AND ORDER
Michael H. Simon, District Judge.
Before the Court is a motion for partial summary judgment filed by ICTSI Oregon, Inc. ("ICTSI") against several affirmative defenses alleged by International Longshore and Warehouse Union ("ILWU"), International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 8 ("Local 8"), [*3] and International Longshore and Warehouse Union Local 40 ("Local 40") (collectively, the "ILWU Entities"). ICTSI also seeks partial summary judgment based on issue preclusion, arising out of the earlier opinions of this Court and the decisions of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. For the reasons discussed below, ICTSI's motion is granted in part and denied in part.
A. Summary Judgment
A party is entitled to summary judgment if the "movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). The moving party has the burden of establishing the absence of a genuine dispute of material fact. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265 (1986). The court must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-movant and draw all reasonable inferences in the non-movant's favor. Clicks Billiards Inc. v. Sixshooters Inc., 251 F.3d 1252, 1257 (9th Cir. 2001). Although "[c]redibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge . . . ruling on a motion for summary judgment," the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position [*4] [is] insufficient . . . ." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986). "Where the record taken as a whole could not lead a rational trier of fact to find for the non-moving party, there is no genuine issue for trial." Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S. Ct. 1348, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986) (citation and quotation marks omitted).
B. Issue PreclusionRead The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8501 *; 2019 WL 267714
INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, Plaintiff, v. ICTSI OREGON, INC., Defendant.ICTSI OREGON, INC., Counterclaim-Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION Local 8; and INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION Local 40, Counterclaim-Defendant.
Prior History: Int'l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. ICTSI Or., Inc., 932 F. Supp. 2d 1181, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36095 (D. Or., Mar. 15, 2013)
Entities, damages, Port, reefer, affirmative defense, collateral source rule, slowdowns, issue preclusion, work stoppage, adjudicated, partial summary judgment, preclusion, arbitration, windfall, contempt, rent, secondary boycott, mitigation, litigated, rebate, preclusive effect, proceedings, tortfeasor, cost sharing, secondary, parties, substantial factor, violations, argues, contributed