Plasterers Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enter. Inc. Dick Peck, D/B/A Coast Plastering, AKA Coast Plastering, Inc., 819 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1987). · Go Syfert
Search
Plasterers Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enter. Inc. Dick Peck, D/B/A Coast Plastering, AKA Coast Plastering, Inc., 819 F.2d 217 (9th Cir. 1987). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 2× by 2 distinct cases, last quoted 1993 · …generally a party may not gain review of a stipulated judgment. at p. 219 ✓
16 citation events (5 in the last 25 years) across 5 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Thompson v. Citibank, N.A. (casd, 2023-07-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Thompson v. Citibank, N.A.
S.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1987). 16 If a court determines that a suit or proceeding may be referred to arbitration under 17 the FAA, it “shall” issue a stay pending the completion of arbitration upon a motion from 18 either party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Brady v. LendingClub Bank, National Association
S.D. Cal. · 2023 · confidence medium
Union No. 346 v. 20 Wyland Enterprises Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218 (9th Cir. 1987). 21 If a court determines that a suit or proceeding may be referred to arbitration under 22 the FAA, it “shall” issue a stay pending the completion of arbitration upon a motion from 23 either party.
discussed Cited as authority (rule) William Marr v. Bank of America National Assoc (2×) also: Cited "see, e.g."
9th Cir. · 2013 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218-19 (9th Cir. 1987); Seidman v. City of Beverly Hills, 785 F.2d 1447, 1448 (9th Cir. 1986).
cited Cited as authority (rule) Marint Ltd. v. Besdine Management Co.
9th Cir. · 2008 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir. 1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Virginia G. Druhan v. American Mutual Life, Alvin McPherson Alabama Financial Group (2×)
11th Cir. · 1999 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218-19 (9th Cir.1987) (reading Procter & Gamble narrowly).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Ditter v. Greenberg (In re Ditter)
9th Cir. BAP · 1996 · confidence medium
CONCLUSION Although we recognize that our actions here may appear to be a waste of judicial resources, the Ninth Circuit has rejected the proposition that “a stipulated judgment is appealable when the stipulation is merely a means of gaining appellate review of an interlocutory order.” Plasterers Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enterprises, 819 F.2d 217, 218 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Nos. 93-55478, 93-55695
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Seidman v. City of Beverly Hills, 785 F.2d 1447, 1448 (9th Cir.1986); Plasterer's Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enterprises, Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir.1987). 69 In two cases, however, we have made clear that plaintiffs may appeal from a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, at least where the plaintiff is not acting pursuant to a settlement agreement intended to terminate the litigation.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Concha v. London
9th Cir. · 1995 · confidence medium
Seidman v. City of Beverly Hills, 785 F.2d 1447, 1448 (9th Cir.1986); Plasterer’s Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Enterprises, Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir.1987).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Lawrence Moore v. Local Union 569 of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers San Diego Electrical Pension Trust Joe Heisler Tom Pridemore
9th Cir. · 1994 · confidence medium
This exception "applies only if 'the only other route of appeal is a contempt judgment, and by taking a dismissal and appealing, the appellant avoids unseemly conflict with the District Court over the contempt issue.' " Plasterers Local Union No. 346 v. Wyland Ent., Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218 (9th Cir.1987) (quoting 2 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition Sec. 3:315 (1981)). 4 Because another route of appeal was available, we lack jurisdiction over Moore's appeal from the voluntary dismissal order.
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nolan Edward Klein v. Shermann Boxx County of Washoe Daniel Bogden
9th Cir. · 1993 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 219 (9th Cir.1987) ("[G]enerally a party may not gain review of a stipulated judgment.").
cited Cited as authority (rule) Nutri-Metics Intern., Inc. v. Carrington Laboratories, Inc.
9th Cir. · 1992 · confidence medium
Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218-19 (9th Cir.1987) ("[G]enerally a party may not gain review of a stipulated judgment."); Unioil, Inc. v. E.F.
discussed Cited "see" Ralph Merten v. City of Los Angeles
9th Cir. · 1993 · signal: accord · confidence high
This contention lacks merit. 4 "A plaintiff may not appeal a voluntary dismissal because it is not an involuntary adverse judgment against him." Seidman v. City of Beverly Hills, 785 F.2d 1447, 1448 (9th Cir.1986) (order); accord Plasterers Local U. No. 346 v. Wyland Enterprises, Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218 (9th Cir.1987). 5 On June 23, 1992, Merten filed his original complaint alleging violations of the ADEA and pendent state claims before the statutory sixty-day period had passed from the filing of Merten's charges with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
cited Cited "see" Julius Laczay and Jolanda Laczay v. Ross Adhesives, a Division of Conros Corporation
6th Cir. · 1988 · signal: see · confidence high
See Plasterers Local Union v. Wyland Enterprises, Inc., 819 F.2d 217, 218-19 (9th Cir.1987).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
PLASTERERS LOCAL UNION NO. 346, Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
WYLAND ENTERPRISES INC.; Dick Peck, D/B/A Coast Plastering, AKA Coast Plastering, Inc., Defendants-Appellants
86-6482.
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Jun 4, 1987.
819 F.2d 217
Gary F. Overstreet, Los Angeles, Cal. and Reed E. Schaper, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendants-appellants., Fern M. Steiner, San Diego, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee.
Pregerson, Nelson, Wiggins.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PREGERSON, Circuit Judge:

The plaintiff, Plasterers Local Union No. 346 (“the Union”), brought an action for specific performance of the arbitration provisions of its collective bargaining agreement with the defendants, Wyland Enterprises, Inc. (“Wyland”) and Coast Plastering, Inc. Wyland moved to disqualify the Union’s attorneys for a conflict of interest. The motion was denied. The parties settled and the district court entered judgment pursuant to the parties’ stipulation compelling arbitration. Wyland appeals the denial of its motion to disqualify.

Wyland contends that a stipulated judgment is appealable when the stipulation is merely a means of gaining appellate review of an interlocutory order. This does not appear to be the law of this circuit. In Seidman v. City of Beverly Hills, 785 F.2d 1447 (9th Cir.1986) (order), the plaintiff stipulated to dismissal of his action after the district court denied his motion for certification of a class. The plaintiff appealed the judgment seeking review of the order denying class certification. This court dismissed the appeal, holding that the plaintiff “deprived this or any other court of jurisdiction over this action by stipulating to a voluntary dismissal with prejudice.” Id. at 1448.

Wyland, however, contends that United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U.S. 677, 78 S.Ct. 983, 2 L.Ed.2d 1077 (1958) compels a contrary holding. In Proctor & Gamble the United States was using a grand jury transcript to prepare for an antitrust trial. The district court, over opposition by the United States, granted the defendants’ motion for discovery of the transcript. The United States moved to have the court’s order compelling production of the transcript amended to provide that the case would be dismissed if the government failed to produce the transcript in 30 days. The district court amended its order, the United States refused to produce the transcript, the action was dismissed, and the United States appealed. The Supreme Court held the dismissal to be ap-pealable. The Court stated that “[w]hen the Government proposed dismissal for failure to obey, it had lost on the merits and was only seeking an expeditious review.” Id. at 680-81, 78 S.Ct. at 985.

Procter & Gamble does not dictate ap-pealability in the present case. The order over which review was sought in Procter & Gamble was an order compelling the government to produce documents. The government was forced to comply under the threat of contempt. The holding in Procter & Gamble applies only if “the only other route of appeal is a contempt judgment, and by taking a dismissal and appealing, the appellant avoids unseemly conflict with the District Court over the contempt issue.” 2 Federal Procedure, Lawyers Edition § 3:315 (1981). Because the present case did not present the appellant[*219] with the prospect of contempt, Procter & Gamble does not apply.

Furthermore, the instant case is not controlled by Procter & Gamble because Wy-land did not settle merely to gain review. The Union brought the lawsuit solely to compel arbitration, and Wyland, as it stated in its reply brief, agreed that arbitration was proper. Because both sides agreed that arbitration was proper, there was no controversy, and settlement was not technical.

Because generally a party may not gain review of a stipulated judgment, and because the present case does not fall within the exception carved out by Procter & Gamble, the judgment below is not appeal-able.

APPEAL DISMISSED.