NOT FOR PUBLICATION FILED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS AUG 22 2025

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT SAMSON TUG AND BARGE CO., INC, No. 24-5730

D.C. Nos.

Plaintiff - Appellant, 3:20-cv-00108-TMB

3:20-cv-00248-TMB-MMS and MARINE ENGINEERS' BENEFICIAL, MEMORANDUM* AFL-CIO,

Plaintiff, v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, ALASKA LONGSHORE DIVISION; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, UNIT 222,

Defendants - Appellees. SAMSON TUG AND BARGE CO., INC, No. 24-6017

Plaintiff - Appellee, D.C. No.

3:20-cv-00108-TMB v. INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, ALASKA

*

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. LONGSHORE DIVISION; INTERNATIONAL LONGSHORE AND WAREHOUSE UNION, UNIT 222,

Defendants - Appellants.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Alaska

Timothy M. Burgess, Circuit Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted August 15, 2025

Anchorage, Alaska Before: GRABER, OWENS, and R. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff Samson Tug and Barge Company brought claims under the Labor Relations Management Act against Defendants International Longshore and Warehouse Union, Alaska Longshore Division and Unit 222. Plaintiff appeals from the summary judgment entered in favor of Defendants. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. Reviewing de novo, Donnell v. Kowell, 533 F.3d 762, 769 (9th Cir. 2008), we affirm.

1. Defendants are entitled to a complete defense as to Plaintiff’s claims under the work preservation doctrine. See NLRB v. Int’l Longshoremen’s Ass’n, 473 U.S. 61, 81–82 (1985) (holding that when the objective of an agreement and the purpose behind its enforcement is “work preservation,” the union does not violate 29 U.S.C. § 158(b)(4)(B) or § 158(e)(6)); Int’l Longshore & Warehouse Union v. NLRB, 978 F.3d 625, 637 (9th Cir. 2020) (holding that a “valid work

2 24-5730 preservation objective provides a complete defense against alleged violations of section 8(b)(4)(D) . . . ”).

Here, the longshore work conducted at the Womens Bay terminal falls under the purview of the All-Alaska Longshore Agreement (“AALA”) because the terminal is owned by Matson Navigation Company, which is an employer that is a signatory to the AALA. The AALA provides that Defendants’ members “shall operate all cargo handling equipment on facilities owned or operated by Signatory Employers for movement and handling of the cargo/equipment on behalf of the Employer . . . and [n]on-signatory employees shall not operate any cargo handling equipment on facilities owned or operated by Signatory Employers beyond an area designated and agreed to jointly by the parties.” (Emphasis added). Moreover, Defendants’ members had in fact performed work at the terminal for two years, before pursuing arbitration. Accordingly, Defendants’ pursuit of arbitration was for a valid work preservation purpose.

2. The district court erred by denying as moot Defendants’ motion for Rule 11 sanctions, without considering the motion on the merits. An entry of summary judgment does not render a pending motion for Rule 11 sanctions moot. See Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc., 815 F.3d 623, 631 (9th Cir. 2016) (“Even where one issue in a case has been rendered moot, others may remain.”).

3 24-5730

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED for additional proceedings consistent with this disposition. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.

4 24-5730