Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

WATERFRONT COMM'N OF NEW YORK HARBOR v. ELIZABETH-

April 24, 1998

WATERFRONT COMMISSION OF NEW YORK HARBOR, on behalf of itself and the State of New Jersey, Plaintiff,
v.
ELIZABETH-NEWARK SHIPPING, INC., Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: WALLS

OPINION

 Walls, District Judge

 This matter comes before the Court upon a motion for summary judgment by plaintiff Waterfront Commission of New York. Pursuant to Rule 78 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court considers this motion without oral argument. For the reasons that follow, plaintiff's motion is granted.

 Background

 The material facts of this case are not in dispute. Plaintiff Waterfront Commission of New York Harbor ("Commission") is a bi-state instrumentality of New Jersey and New York established pursuant to the Waterfront and Airport Commission Act, N.J.S.A. § 32:23-1 et seq. ("Act" or "Compact"), to carry out the mandate of that compact. Defendant Elizabeth-Newark Shipping, Inc. ("ENS") is a New Jersey corporation that has been shipping automobiles and light trucks--to which it has held title *fn1" --to Haiti, for later sale in that country. Plaintiff contends, and defendant does not deny, that on at least two occasions, ENS employed unlicensed pier superintendents and hiring agents as well as workers who were not included in the longshoremen's register to load those vehicles onto its ships. Plaintiff contends that the use of such unlicensed labor is a direct violation of the Act, and seeks (1) to permanently enjoin defendant from engaging in such activity in the future, (2) to recover assessments, interest, and monetary penalties for the alleged violation, and (3) an award of costs and disbursements. Defendant maintains that because it holds title to the freight handled by these unlicensed workers, its activities fall beyond the scope of the Act.

 Legal Standard

 Summary judgment is appropriate where the moving party establishes that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is "entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). At the summary judgment stage, the court's function is not to weigh the evidence and determine the truth of the matter, but rather it is to determine whether there is a genuine issue for trial. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202, 106 S. Ct. 2505 (1986). In the motion at bar, the parties do not dispute any material facts.

 Analysis

 I. Application of the Act

 The Waterfront Commission was formed to combat corrupt labor conditions within the Port of New York District. N.J.S.A. 32:23-1 *fn2" The Compact establishes a system under which waterfront labor is regulated and, of relevance to this matter, mandates (1) that no person be employed as a longshoreman unless listed in the "longshoremen's register" established by the statute, N.J.S.A. 32:23-27, and (2) that no unlicensed person be employed as a pier superintendent or hiring agent. N.J.S.A. 32:23-12.

 The parties have collectively submitted 57 pages of briefs in which they wrangle over the statutory definitions of these terms. They agree that § 32:23-6 of the act defines

 
. "longshoremen" as persons "employed for work at a pier or other waterfront terminal. . . by a carrier of freight by water. . physically to move waterborne freight on vessels berthed at piers, on piers or at other waterfront terminals;"
 
. "pier superintendents" as persons "employed for work at a pier or other waterfront terminal by a carrier of freight by water. . . whose work at such pier or other waterfront terminal includes the supervision, directly or indirectly, of the work of longshoremen;" and
 
. "hiring agents" as persons "who on behalf of a carrier of freight by water. . . shall select any ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.