Lee Pharmaceuticals v. Kreps

577 F.2d 610, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 601
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
DecidedJune 29, 1978
DocketNo. 76-2082
StatusPublished
Cited by32 cases

This text of 577 F.2d 610 (Lee Pharmaceuticals v. Kreps) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Lee Pharmaceuticals v. Kreps, 577 F.2d 610, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 601 (9th Cir. 1978).

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In response to appellant’s petition to compel arbitration of certain grievances, appel-lee stipulated to the initial existence of a collective bargaining agreement between the parties but asserted the agreement had been abandoned because appellant took no action to implement it for over a year despite appellee’s overtures. The district court agreed and dismissed the petition.' The appellant argues that the defense of abandonment should have been left to the arbitrator. We agree.

In Operating Engineers Local 150 v. Flair Builders, Inc., 406 U.S. 487, 92 S.Ct. 1710, 32 L,Ed.2d 248 (1971), the Supreme Court held that a district court erred in dismissing a petition to compel arbitration on the ground of laches. The Court held that a broad arbitration clause requiring the parties to arbitrate “any difference” included the defense of laches.

In this case the collective bargaining agreement provided without limitation for arbitration of any “complaint against the other party regarding a grievance which has not been amicably settled” or, more simply, “all disputes and grievances.” This language is sufficiently broad to include the defense of repudiation which, under the circumstances here, is equivalent to a defense of laches. See also H & M Box, Inc. v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers Local 45, 493 F.2d 1226 (1st Cir. 1974).

Reversed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

United States v. Braren
338 F.3d 971 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)
Leeds v. Quigg
720 F. Supp. 193 (District of Columbia, 1989)
Ali v. Immigration & Naturalization Service
661 F. Supp. 1234 (D. Massachusetts, 1986)
Long v. United States Internal Revenue Service
742 F.2d 1173 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Richard S. Berry v. Department of Justice
733 F.2d 1343 (Ninth Circuit, 1984)
Ellen Moose v. United States of America
674 F.2d 1277 (Ninth Circuit, 1982)
Church of Scientology of California v. Linberg
529 F. Supp. 945 (C.D. California, 1981)
City of Dubuque v. Telegraph Herald, Inc.
297 N.W.2d 523 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1980)
Irons and Sears v. C. Marshall Dann
606 F.2d 1215 (D.C. Circuit, 1979)
Reinstein v. Police Commissioner of Boston
391 N.E.2d 881 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1979)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
577 F.2d 610, 198 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 601, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lee-pharmaceuticals-v-kreps-ca9-1978.