Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. Seiu Local 24/7 , 585 F. App'x 565 ( 2014 )

FILED
NOT FOR PUBLICATION OCT 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC No. 12-17309
COMPANY,
D.C. No. 4:10-cv-05288-SBA
Plaintiff-counter-defendant -
Appellee,
MEMORANDUM*
v.
SEIU LOCAL 24/7,
Defendant-counter-claimant -
Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of California
Saundra B. Armstrong, District Judge, Presiding
Argued and Submitted October 7, 2014
San Francisco, California
Before: W. FLETCHER and WATFORD, Circuit Judges, and DUFFY, District
Judge.**
*
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
**
The Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, United States District Judge for
the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.
Defendant SEIU Local 24/7 appeals from the district court’s order denying
the union’s motion for attorneys’ fees. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §
1291 and we affirm.
This court reviews “the denial of attorney’s fees for abuse of discretion, and
must affirm unless the district court applied the wrong legal standard or its findings
were illogical, implausible or without support in the record.” TrafficSchool.com,
Inc. v. Edriver Inc., 653 F.3d 820, 832 (9th Cir. 2011) (internal citations omitted).
The district court did not abuse its discretion here.
Attorneys’ fees are appropriate as a sanction when a party acts in bad faith or
engages in conduct tantamount to bad faith. Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 994 (9th
Cir. 2001). A refusal to obey an arbitral order may constitute bad faith conduct.
Int’l Union of Petroleum & Indus. Workers v. W. Indus. Maint., 707 F.2d 425, 428
(9th Cir. 1983). However, a challenge to an arbitral order on the ground that an
arbitrator did not apply or misinterpreted the underlying contract does not
necessarily constitute bad faith.
This court has already decided this issue. In Federated Department Stores v.
United Foods and Commercial Workers Union, Local 1442, a company brought a
suit to vacate an arbitrator’s award on the ground that his decision contradicted the
contract’s language. 901 F.2d 1494, 1495–96 (9th Cir. 1990). As in this case, the
-2-
panel disagreed and found the interpretation plausible. Id. at 1497. This court
nevertheless rejected the union’s request for attorneys’ fees because there was “no
evidence that the Company brought this action in bad faith.” Id. at 1498 (citing
Sheet Metal Workers Int’l Ass’n Local Union # 420 v. Kinney Air Conditioning
Co., 756 F.2d 742, 747 (9th Cir. 1985)).
In light of Federated Department Stores, the district court did not abuse its
discretion.
AFFIRMED.
-3-
FILED
Pacific Gas & Electric Company v. SEIU Local 24/7, No. 12-17309 OCT 23 2014
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
WATFORD, Circuit Judge, concurring: U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
The union has made a strong showing that PG&E’s petition to vacate the
arbitrator’s award was entirely frivolous. The magistrate judge agreed with the
union’s position in the proceedings below, and had we been reviewing that
decision, I would have voted to affirm the imposition of sanctions without
hesitation. But the district judge who ruled on the merits of PG&E’s petition—and
ultimately denied it in fairly strong language—came out differently on the question
of frivolousness. In this circuit, we review that determination only for an abuse of
discretion, and I can’t say that the district court’s conclusion, although different
from my own, was “illogical, implausible, or without support in inferences that
may be drawn from the record.” United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247, 1262
(9th Cir. 2009) (en banc).