Old Ben Coal Company v. OWCP ( 2007 )


Menu:
  •                             In the
    United States Court of Appeals
    For the Seventh Circuit
    ____________
    No. 06-2189
    OLD BEN COAL COMPANY,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED
    STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, and ANNA MELVIN,
    Respondents.
    ____________
    On Petition to Review an Order of the
    Benefits Review Board, U.S. Department of Labor.
    No. 94-BLA-1116
    ____________
    ARGUED JANUARY 11, 2007—DECIDED JANUARY 25, 2007
    ____________
    Before BAUER, POSNER, and FLAUM, Circuit Judges.
    POSNER, Circuit Judge. Robert Melvin first applied for
    black lung benefits in 1980. 
    30 U.S.C. §§ 901-45
    ; 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 727.200
    -.206. After amazingly protracted proceedings
    unnecessary to describe, last year the Benefits Review
    Board upheld an award to his widow of benefits, Melvin
    v. Old Ben Coal Co., BRB No. 04-0506 BLA (Dept. of Labor
    July 11, 2005), that a petition for review, in the name of
    Old Ben Coal Company, asks us to set aside. In her brief
    in response to the petition, Mrs. Melvin asks us to dismiss
    2                                                No. 06-2189
    the petition on the startling grounds that the purported
    petitioner, Old Ben Coal Company, neither exists nor is
    represented by counsel. A corporation cannot litigate in
    federal court pro se. Rowland v. California Men’s Colony,
    
    506 U.S. 194
    , 201-02 (1993); Muzikowski v. Paramount
    Pictures Corp., 
    322 F.3d 918
    , 924 (7th Cir. 2003).
    Old Ben did not deign to file a reply brief, so we ordered
    it to do so. It is now apparent that the case must be dis-
    missed, though not on the precise grounds advanced by
    Mrs. Melvin: that no lawyer filed an appearance in this
    court and that Old Ben is deceased. A party’s counsel need
    not file a formal appearance in this court, and the dis-
    solution of a firm need not abate suits by or against it,
    Canadian Ace Brewing Co. v. Joseph Schlitz Brewing Co., 
    629 F.2d 1183
    , 1185-86 (7th Cir. 1980), since “the dissolved
    corporation might have a successor that could be substi-
    tuted for it and the suit continue.” BondPro Corp. v. Siemens
    Power Generation, Inc., 
    463 F.3d 702
    , 705 (7th Cir. 2006). Old
    Ben, however, as we’ll see, has no successor.
    In 2004, a bankruptcy judge ordered the liquidation of
    Old Ben together with its parent, Horizon Natural Re-
    sources Company. But the order states that pending black
    lung claims against the debtors in the bankruptcy pro-
    ceeding, including Old Ben, “shall not be dismissed but
    instead, allowed to proceed to final adjudication with the
    applicable debtors as parties. Finally adjudicated claims
    that result in benefit awards will not be enforced against
    the Debtors but rather will form the basis for collection
    from any other responsible parties therefore, including
    without limitation, the Debtors[’] sureties under the
    [black lung statute].” In re Horizon Natural Resources Co.,
    No. 02-14261, slip op. at 44-45 (Bankr. E.D. Ky. Sept. 16,
    2004). That was a confusing order. Old Ben was liquidated
    No. 06-2189                                                 3
    and no successor designated; and because suits against it
    were allowed to proceed only outside the bankruptcy
    court, claimants could not satisfy their claims out of assets
    of the debtors’ estates in bankruptcy. But although the
    bankruptcy proceeding is not yet closed, apparently there
    are no assets.
    Several months after the bankruptcy court’s order,
    while the Melvin case was pending before the Benefits
    Review Board, Greenberg Traurig LLP, the law firm that
    had represented Old Ben in that case, withdrew as coun-
    sel. But after the Board affirmed the award of benefits,
    the firm filed a motion for reconsideration, and, after that
    was denied, filed the petition for review in this court, filed
    briefs, and appeared at argument. It never filed a formal
    appearance in this court, but none was required. 7th Cir. R.
    3(d). What was strange was the representation of a com-
    pany that no longer had any palpable existence or suc-
    cessor.
    In the reply that we ordered, Greenberg Traurig argues
    that the bankruptcy judge’s order “preserved Melvin’s
    claim against Old Ben.” That is not precise. Mrs. Melvin
    seeks nothing from Old Ben, which indeed has nothing
    that it could give her or anyone else. She had a claim
    against Old Ben, but because of Old Ben’s bankruptcy the
    claim has been paid by the Department of Labor out of the
    Black Lung Disability Trust Fund, which backstops em-
    ployer liability to miners disabled by black lung disease. 
    26 U.S.C. §§ 9501
    (a), (d); Allen R. Prunty & Mark E. Solomons,
    “The Federal Black Lung Program: Its Evolution and
    Current Issues,” 
    91 W. Va. L. Rev. 665
     (1989).
    The Labor Department is not seeking anything from Old
    Ben either. Old Ben has nothing—any doubt on that score
    having been dispelled by the bankruptcy court’s action in
    4                                                No. 06-2189
    cutting Old Ben free from the bankruptcy proceeding,
    implying that the company has no assets that a bankruptcy
    trustee might seek to preserve against black lung claimants
    or any other claimants or creditors of Old Ben or its equally
    defunct parent, Horizon. Old Ben has no possible stake in
    this litigation. It is therefore not a real party in interest,
    which is to say a party that has a legally protectable
    interest in the outcome of the suit. It is a party in name
    only.
    The only entities with any possible interest in upending
    the award of benefits to Mrs. Melvin, it turns out, are B-P
    America and St. Paul Travelers Insurance Company. Once
    upon a time, Horizon (Old Ben’s parent) was owned by
    Standard Oil of Indiana, which was later acquired by B-P
    America. Old Ben tells us that pursuant to 
    30 U.S.C. § 934
    (b)(1), the Department of Labor may try to recover
    the amount of the benefits that it has paid to Mrs. Melvin
    from St. Paul, which had issued a surety bond to Stan-
    dard Oil. We add that the Department could do so only
    if B-P America (as Standard Oil’s successor) is liable to
    the Department, since a surety’s liability is derivative
    from the liability of the beneficiary of the surety’s bond.
    So Greenberg Traurig is pursuing this case on the off-
    chance that a nonparty, B-P America or the St. Paul in-
    surance company, may be liable to the Department of
    Labor, which though named as a respondent in the peti-
    tion for review has not filed a brief. It was the Department
    that awarded Melvin the benefits that Greenberg Traurig
    is challenging, and it is content to allow Mrs. Melvin’s
    lawyer to defend the award. The Department may want
    to obtain reimbursement of those benefits from B-P or
    St. Paul, and conceivably that possibility might have
    enabled either of those companies or both to intervene. But
    neither has tried to intervene either in this proceeding or
    No. 06-2189                                                 5
    in the administrative proceeding, as it could have done.
    Any entity, such as an insurance company or a surety,
    that would be prejudiced by an award of black lung
    benefits is entitled to intervene in the administrative
    proceeding with the rights of a party. 
    20 C.F.R. §§ 725.360
    (a)(4), (d). It can seek intervention in this court
    as well. Fed. R. App. P. 15(d). Had B-P America or the
    St. Paul insurance company a sufficient stake in the
    litigation to be entitled to participate as a party, it should
    have sought party status. Neither company has done so
    and therefore neither is a party. The only entity seeking to
    invoke our jurisdiction, namely the ghost of Old Ben,
    cannot do so, as it has nothing to lose or gain.
    Greenberg Traurig acknowledges that it is being paid
    by B-P America and St. Paul. It says, “There is nothing
    unusual or legally suspect for potentially responsible
    parties to hire attorneys to defend their interests.” Indeed
    not. But if X has nothing to gain from winning a suit, it
    cannot sue even if Y is paying a lawyer to defend Y’s
    interest in the outcome of X’s suit. The existence of that
    interest does not make X, which in this case is Old Ben, a
    real party in interest. Y would have to intervene if it
    wanted to protect its interest. It could not protect that
    interest by directing its lawyer to represent a named party
    that was not a real party in interest.
    DISMISSED.
    A true Copy:
    Teste:
    _____________________________
    Clerk of the United States Court of
    Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
    USCA-02-C-0072—1-25-07