12- 4883

Uni t ed St at es v. Nee
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT
SUMMARY ORDER
RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER
FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF
APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURTS LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER
IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN
ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION SUMMARY ORDER). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY
ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL.
At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States
Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 23
rd
day of July, two thousand fourteen.
PRESENT:
BARRINGTON D. PARKER,
PETER W. HALL,
RAYMOND J. LOHIER, JR.,
Circuit Judges.
_____________________________________
United States of America,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v. 12-4883
Patrick Nee, Levy Messinetti,
Appellants,
N.Y.C. District Council of N.Y.C.
& Vicinity of the United Brotherhood
of Carpenters, Paschal McGuinness,
Robert J. Cavanaugh, Irving Zeidman,
First Vice President, Frederick W. Devine,
Second Vice President, Francis J.P. McHale,
Secretary-Treasurer, Anthony Salerno,
AKA Fat Tony, Vincent DiNapoli,
Peter DeFeo, Alexander Morelli,
AKA Black Alex, Liborio Bellomo,
AKA Barney, Anthony Fiorino,
CERTIFIED COPY ISSUED ON 07/23/2014
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 1 07/23/2014 1277096 8
District Council, Peter Thomassen,
John W. Holt, Sr., John R. Abbatemarco,
Defendants.
1
_____________________________________
FOR APPELLANTS: Pat r i ck Nee, pro se, Maspet h, N. Y. ,
Levy Messi net t i , pro se, Lawr ence,
N. Y.
FOR APPELLEE: Benj ami n H. Tor r ance, Tar a M. La
Mor t e, Sar ah S. Nor mand, Assi st ant
Uni t ed St at es At t or neys, for Pr eet
Bhar ar a, Uni t ed St at es At t or ney f or
t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k,
New Yor k, N. Y.
Appeal f r oman or der of t he Uni t ed St at es Di st r i ct Cour t f or
t he Sout her n Di st r i ct of New Yor k ( Ber man, J. ) .
UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND
DECREED t hat t he or der of t he di st r i ct cour t i s VACATED and t he
mat t er i s REMANDED f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs.
Appel l ant s Pat r i ck Nee and Levy Messi net t i , pr oceedi ng pro
se, appeal f r omt he Oct ober 23, 2012 or der of t he di st r i ct cour t
denyi ng t hei r pet i t i ons f or r evi ew of a Not i ce of Vet o, i ssued
by cour t - appoi nt ed Revi ew Of f i cer Denni s Wal sh ( RO) , whi ch
r emoved t hemf r omt hei r posi t i ons as el ect ed of f i cer s i n one of
t he l ocal uni ons t hat compr i se t he Di st r i ct Counci l of New Yor k
Ci t y and Vi ci ni t y of t he Uni t ed Br ot her hood of Car pent er s and
J oi ner s of Amer i ca ( t he Di st r i ct Counci l ) . The RO was
1
The Cl er k of Cour t i s di r ect ed t o amend t he of f i ci al
capt i on t o r ead as shown above.
2
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 2 07/23/2014 1277096 8
appoi nt ed, and i ssued t he Not i ce of Vet o, pur suant t o a
St i pul at i on and Or der bet ween t he Gover nment and t he Di st r i ct
Counci l . The St i pul at i on and Or der wer e appr oved by t he di st r i ct
cour t i n J une 2010 ( t he St i pul at i on) . We assume t he par t i es
f ami l i ar i t y wi t h t he under l yi ng f act s, t he pr ocedur al hi st or y of
t he case, and t he i ssues pr esent ed f or r evi ew.
The St i pul at i on pr ovi des t hat any aggr i eved per son may
pet i t i on t he di st r i ct cour t f or r evi ew of a deci si on made by t he
RO pur suant t o Par agr aph 5( b) of t he St i pul at i on and t hat , i n
r evi ewi ng such a deci si on, t he cour t must appl y t he same
st andar d of r evi ew appl i cabl e t o r evi ew of f i nal agency act i on
under t he Admi ni st r at i ve Pr ocedur e Act . See St i pul at i on 11.
I t f ur t her pr ovi des, however , t hat not hi ng i n t he St i pul at i on
pr ecl udes . . . any aggr i eved per son f r ompet i t i oni ng t he Cour t
on t he gr ound t hat t he Revi ew Of f i cer has exceeded hi s aut hor i t y
under t h[ e] St i pul at i on. Id.
Her e, a l i ber al const r uct i on of t he Appel l ant s pro se
pet i t i ons f or r evi ew i ndi cat es t hat t hey chal l enged bot h t he
pr opr i et y of t he RO s Not i ce of Vet o and hi s aut hor i t y t o r emove
t hemf r omt hei r posi t i ons. Pr i or t o r evi ewi ng t he pr opr i et y of
t he RO s act i on, we f i r st exami ne t he RO s aut hor i t y under t he
St i pul at i on t o r emove t he Appel l ant s f r omt hei r el ect ed of f i ces,
an i ssue of i nt er pr et at i on t hat we r evi ew de novo. See Broad.
Music, Inc. v. DMX Inc., 683 F. 3d 32, 43 ( 2d Ci r . 2012) ( DMX)
3
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 3 07/23/2014 1277096 8
( r evi ewi ng t he i nt er pr et at i on of a consent decr ee de novo) ; see
also Doe v. Pataki, 481 F. 3d 69, 76 ( 2d Ci r . 2007) ( const r uct i on
of a st i pul at i on under l yi ng a consent decr ee r evi ewed de novo) .
Consent decr ees ( and t hei r at t endant st i pul at i ons) ar e t o be
const r ued basi cal l y as cont r act s, DMX, 683 F. 3d at 43 ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) , and or di nar y r ul es of cont r act
i nt er pr et at i on ar e gener al l y appl i cabl e, Doe, 481 F. 3d at 75.
When i nt er pr et i ng a par t i cul ar pr ovi si on of a consent decr ee, we
ar e r equi r ed . . . t o r ead t hat pr ovi si on i n l i ght of t he decr ee
as a whol e. United States v. Local 1804-1, Intl Longshoremens
Assn, 44 F. 3d 1091, 1097 ( 2d Ci r . 1995) . When t he l anguage of
t he decr ee i s ambi guous, a cour t may consi der ext r i nsi c evi dence
t o ascer t ai n t he par t i es i nt ent , i ncl udi ng t he ci r cumst ances
sur r oundi ng t he f or mat i on of t he decr ee. United States v.
Broad. Music, Inc., 275 F. 3d 168, 175 ( 2d Ci r . 2001) ( i nt er nal
quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) .
I n i t s Oct ober 23, 2012 or der , t he di st r i ct cour t hel d t hat
t he RO unquest i onabl y has t he power t o r emove el ect ed of f i ci al s
under Par agr aph 5( b) of t he St i pul at i on. United States v. Dist.
Council of N.Y.C., No. 90- cv- 5722, 2012 WL 5236577, at *7
( S. D. N. Y. Oct . 23, 2012) . I n so hol di ng, t he di st r i ct cour t
r el i ed on i t s pr i or deci si on const r ui ng t he St i pul at i on. See id.
at *6- *7 ( ci t i ng United States v. Dist. Council of N.Y.C., No.
90- cv- 5722, 2010 WL 5297747, at *8- *9 ( S. D. N. Y. Dec. 21, 2010)
4
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 4 07/23/2014 1277096 8
( Willoughby) ( hol di ng t hat t he RO had been gr ant ed br oad power
t o er adi cat e cor r upt i on wi t hi n t he uni on and t hat , under
Par agr aph 5( b) ( i i i ) of t he St i pul at i on, had been speci f i cal l y
aut hor i zed t o i ssue a vet o i f a per son s conduct i s i nconsi st ent
wi t h t he obj ect i ves of [ t he St i pul at i on] ) ) . Revi ewi ng t he
St i pul at i on de novo, we not e t hat i t s l anguage i s capabl e of
mul t i pl e i nt er pr et at i ons and t her ef or e ambi guous. See Compagnie
Financiere de CIC et de LUnion Europeenne v. Merrill Lynch,
Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., 232 F. 3d 153, 158 ( 2d Ci r . 2000) .
We t hus di sagr ee wi t h t he di st r i ct cour t s concl usi on t hat t he
St i pul at i on unquest i onabl y af f or ds t he RO t he power t o vet o t he
t enur e of el ect ed l ocal uni on of f i ci al s.
2
Par agr aph 5( b) of t he St i pul at i on t he pr ovi si on under
whi ch t he RO r emoved t he Appel l ant s f r omof f i ce addr esses t he
RO s r evi ew and over si ght aut hor i t y, and l i st s a number of
mat t er s over whi ch t he RO may exer ci se t hat aut hor i t y. See
2
We have pr evi ousl y r ecogni zed t hat [ f ] ew per sons ar e i n
a bet t er posi t i on t o under st and t he meani ng of a consent decr ee
t han t he di st r i ct j udge who oversaw and approved i t , United
States v. Local 359, United Seafood Workers, 55 F. 3d 64, 68 ( 2d
Ci r . 1995) ( emphasi s added) ( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) ,
and we gi ve def er ence t o t he i nt er pr et at i on made by t he di st r i ct
j udge who appr ove[ d] t he decr ee, Doe, 481 F. 3d at 76. Her e,
however , t he case was t r ansf er r ed t o J udge Ber man shor t l y af t er
J udge Hai ght appr oved t he St i pul at i on. Whi l e J udge Ber man di d
i nt er pr et t he St i pul at i on cl ose i n t i me t o i t s appr oval by J udge
Hai ght , t he r at i onal e f or accor di ng def er ence t o t he or i gi nal
j udge who over saw t he st i pul at ed consent decr ee i s under cut when
we ar e r evi ewi ng t he i nt er pr et at i on of t he St i pul at i on by t he
t r ansf er ee j udge.
5
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 5 07/23/2014 1277096 8
St i pul at i on 5( b) ( i ) ( 1) - ( 4) . I ncl uded i n t hat l i st i s t he
aut hor i t y t o r evi ew t he per sons cur r ent l y hol di ng of f i ce or
empl oyment . Id. 5( b) ( i ) ( 3) . I n t ur n, Par agr aph 5( b) ( i i i )
st at es t hat :
Upon r evi ewi ng any mat t er descr i bed i n
[ Par agr aph 5( b) ( i ) ] , t he Revi ew Of f i cer may
det er mi ne t hat t he mat t er r evi ewed . . . ( c) i s
cont r ar y t o or vi ol at es any l aw or Cour t or der
ent er ed i n t hi s case; or ( d) i s cont r ar y t o any
f i duci ar y r esponsi bi l i t y i mposed by 29 U. S. C.
501 . . . ; or ( e) i s i nconsi st ent wi t h t he
obj ect i ves of t hi s St i pul at i on and Or der . Upon
such a det er mi nat i on . . . t he Revi ew Of f i cer
may vet o or r equi r e t he Di st r i ct Counci l t o
r esci nd i t s act i on, pr oposed act i on, or l ack of
act i on.
St i pul at i on 5( b) ( i i i ) .
The Appel l ant s ar gue t hat t he RO s vet o aut hor i t y i s l i mi t ed
t o act i ons under 5( b) ( i i i ) . That i s, Par agr aphs 5( b) ( i ) and
( i i i ) shoul d be r ead as pr ovi di ng t he RO wi t h t he aut hor i t y t o
r evi ew and t o vet o act i ons t aken by per sons cur r ent l y hol di ng
of f i ce onl y when t he RO has det er mi ned t hat t hose act i ons wer e
unl awf ul , cont r ar y t o 501, or i nconsi st ent wi t h t he obj ect i ves
of t he St i pul at i on, but t hose par agr aphs do not pr ovi de t he RO
wi t h t he aut hor i t y t o vet o t he ser vi ces of of f i cer s of t he l ocal
uni on. By cont r ast , t he Gover nment mai nt ai ns t hat , havi ng been
pr ovi ded t he aut hor i t y under Par agr aph 5( b) ( i ) t o r evi ew per sons
cur r ent l y hol di ng of f i ce, t he RO necessar i l y has t he power under
Par agr aph 5( b) ( i i i ) t o vet o an i ndi vi dual s appoi nt ment t o or
cont i nui ng occupat i on of an of f i ce upon concl udi ng t hat
6
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 6 07/23/2014 1277096 8
of f i cehol di ng by such per sons was unl awf ul , cont r ar y t o 501,
or i nconsi st ent wi t h t he obj ect i ves of t he St i pul at i on. Bot h
i nt er pr et at i ons ar e r easonabl e based on t he l anguage i n t he
St i pul at i on. Thus an ambi gui t y exi st s.
Nor does const r ui ng t he pr ovi si ons by r eadi ng t hemi n l i ght
of t he St i pul at i on as a whol e, see Local 1804-1, Intl
Longshoremens Assn, 44 F. 3d at 1097, pr ovi de f ur t her cl ar i t y.
Fi r st , as t he di st r i ct cour t i n Willoughby obser ved, t he
Gover nment s r eadi ng f i nds suppor t i n t he pr eambl e of t he
St i pul at i on, whi ch st at es t hat t he pur pose of t he RO s posi t i on
i s t he er adi cat i on of cor r upt i on and r acket eer i ng as t hey af f ect
uni on car pent er s and uni on empl oyer s. St i pul at i on at 3. On t he
ot her hand, t he RO s di sci pl i nar y aut hor i t y i s expl i ci t l y
addr essed i n Par agr aph 5( f ) of t he St i pul at i on, whi ch per mi t s t he
RO t o i ni t i at e di sci pl i nar y pr oceedi ngs agai nst uni on of f i cer s or
member s. See St i pul at i on 5( f ) . Thi s pr ovi si on, Appel l ant s
ar gue, pr ovi des t he mechani smby whi ch t he RO shoul d have
ef f ect ed t hei r r emoval .
Whi l e we acknowl edge t he gover nment has advanced what may be
a val i d ar gument , based on a r eadi ng of t he t ext of t he
St i pul at i on we al so cannot f or ecl ose t he possi bi l i t y t hat t he
pl ai nt i f f s i nt er pr et at i on i s cor r ect . Gi ven t hese duel i ng
pl ausi bl e i nt er pr et at i ons of and at t endant ambi gui t y i n t he
l anguage of t he St i pul at i on, ext r i nsi c evi dence may be consi der ed
7
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 7 07/23/2014 1277096 8
t o ascer t ai n t he par t i es i nt ent , i ncl udi ng t he ci r cumst ances
sur r oundi ng t he f or mat i on of t he decr ee. BMI, 275 F. 3d at 175
( i nt er nal quot at i on mar ks omi t t ed) . Such evi dence may assi st t he
cour t i n def i ni ng t he RO s aut hor i t y under Par agr aph 5( b) and i n
det er mi ni ng whet her t her e ar e di f f er ences bet ween di sci pl i nar y
act i ons and t he act i ons t aken agai nst Appel l ant s. Those
quest i ons, however , shoul d be r esol ved by t he di st r i ct cour t i n
t he f i r st i nst ance. See JA Apparel Corp. v. Abboud, 568 F. 3d
390, 397 ( 2d Ci r . 2009) ( [ T] he meani ng of t he ambi guous cont r act
i s a quest i on of f act f or t he f act f i nder . ) . For t he f or egoi ng
r easons, we r emand f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs. See, e.g., Macey v.
Carolina Cas. Ins. Co., 674 F. 3d 125, 131 ( 2d Ci r . 2010) .
Accor di ngl y, we VACATE t he di st r i ct cour t s Oct ober 23, 2012
or der and REMAND t he mat t er f or f ur t her pr oceedi ngs not
i nconsi st ent wi t h t hi s or der . We expr ess no opi ni on r egar di ng
t he pr opr i et y of t he RO s act i on.
FOR THE COURT:
Cat her i ne O Hagan Wol f e, Cl er k
8
Case: 12-4883 Document: 76 Page: 8 07/23/2014 1277096 8