Jennifer A. Hadsall v. Sunbelt Rentals, Inc.

In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Seventh Circuit
____________________
No. 20-2482
J ENNIFER A. HADSALL ,
Petitioner-Appellee,
v.
SUNBELT R ENTALS, INC.,
Respondent-Appellant.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Wisconsin.
No. 2:20-cv-00181-JPS — J. P. Stadtmueller, Judge.
____________________
A RGUED J ANUARY 22, 2021 — D ECIDED A PRIL 12, 2021
____________________
Before R IPPLE , KANNE , and SCUDDER , Circuit Judges.
P ER C URIAM. Jennifer Hadsall, Regional Director of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Board, filed a petition in the district
court for a temporary injunction under section 10(j) of the Na-
tional Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j),
1 pending the
1 29 U.S.C. § 160(j) states:

-- 1 of 4 --

2 No. 20-2482
Board’s resolution of unfair labor practices charges against
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc. After the Director’s petition was filed,
the administrative law judge in the Board proceeding issued
its recommendation order, concluding that Sunbelt had vio-
lated sections 8(a)(1), (3), and (5) of the Act.
Before the district court, the Director submitted that Sun-
belt had violated, and continued to violate, sections 8(a)(1),
(3), and (5) of the Act, by interfering with, restraining, and co-
ercing employees in the exercise of their rights under the Act;
discriminatorily eliminating the bargaining unit; and failing
and refusing to bargain collectively and in good faith. The Di-
rector requested a temporary injunction order requiring good
faith interim bargaining and restoration of the bargaining unit
work. On August 7, 2020, the district court granted the Direc-
tor’s petition for an injunction under section 10(j), ordering
Sunbelt to cease and desist from certain unfair labor practices.
Sunbelt appealed the district court’s order to this court.
While this case was under advisement, the Board issued
its decision and order on March 29, 2021. The Director then
filed a motion to dismiss this appeal of the injunction as moot.
The Board shall have power, upon issuance of a com-
plaint as provided in subsection (b) charging that any per-
son has engaged in or is engaging in an unfair labor prac-
tice, to petition any United States district court, within
any district wherein the unfair labor practice in question
is alleged to have occurred or wherein such person re-
sides or transacts business, for appropriate temporary re-
lief or restraining order. Upon the filing of any such peti-
tion the court shall cause notice thereof to be served upon
such person, and thereupon shall have jurisdiction to
grant to the Board such temporary relief or restraining or-
der as it deems just and proper.

-- 2 of 4 --

No. 20-2482 3
In response, Sunbelt submitted that this appeal was not moot
because the Board had severed and retained one issue for fur-
ther consideration, and therefore had not yet issued a full and
final resolution of the case.2
Our circuit’s precedent is clear “that the Board’s resolution
of the unfair labor practices charge moots the appeal.” Kinney
v. Fed. Sec., Inc., 272 F.3d 924, 925 (7th Cir. 2001); see also Bar-
bour v. Central Cartage, Inc., 583 F.2d 335, 336–37 (7th Cir. 1978)
(concluding that, just as in the section 10(l) context, “an appeal
from a Section 10(j) injunction is moot once the Board rules on
the underlying charges”).
The fact that the Board severed one issue from the case and
retained it for further consideration does not affect the ap-
plicability of these principles to the present case. The severed
issue was not one presented to the district court in the Direc-
tor’s petition for an injunction. The issues that were the sub-
ject of the injunction have been resolved fully by the Board’s
order, and the temporary relief authorized by the statute is no
longer available. The Board’s decision has rendered this ac-
tion “a cause which no longer exists.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.
2 The Board’s order stated:
Consistent with our notice and invitation to file briefs is-
sued March 1, 2021, we sever and retain for further con-
sideration the issue of whether the Respondent unlaw-
fully prepared two employee witnesses to testify at the
unfair labor practice hearing by not fully complying with
all the safeguards required under Johnnie’s Poultry Co.,
146 NLRB 770 (1964), enf. denied 344 F.2d 617 (8th Cir.
1965).
Sunbelt Rentals, Inc., 370 NLRB No. 102, at 1 n.4 (Mar. 29, 2021).

-- 3 of 4 --

4 No. 20-2482
Carpet Layers Union, 397 U.S. 655, 657 (1970).
Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot and remand
the case to the district court with directions to vacate its judg-
ment and to dismiss as moot the Director’s petition. Kinney,
272 F.3d at 925 (“We agree … that the district court’s judg-
ment should be vacated and the case dismissed because the
appeal is moot.”); Barbour, 583 F.2d at 337 (“Therefore this ap-
peal is dismissed as moot and the cause is remanded to the
district court so that it can vacate its previous judgment.”); see
also United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U.S. 36, 39–41
(1950).
DISMISSED AND REMANDED

-- 4 of 4 --