Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters,
415 U.S. 423 (1974)

Annotate this Case
  • Syllabus  | 
  • Case

U.S. Supreme Court

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters, 415 U.S. 423 (1974)

Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Teamsters

No. 72-1566

Argued January 8, 1974

Decided March 4, 1974

415 U.S. 423


Petitioner employers brought suit in California state court alleging that respondent Union was engaging in a strike in breach of collective bargaining agreements. The court issued a temporary restraining order on May 18, 1970. Two days later, the case was removed to federal court, and on June 4, the District Court denied the Union's motion to dissolve the restraining order. Strike activity then stopped, and the labor dispute remained dormant until the Union, after the petitioners had refused to bargain, resumed its strike on November 30, 1970. Two days later, the District Court, on petitioners' motion, held the Union in criminal contempt for violating the restraining order. The Court of Appeals reversed on the ground that the order had expired long before November 30, 1970, reasoning that, under both state law and Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 65(b), the order expired no later than June 7, 1970, 20 days after its issuance, and rejecting petitioners' contention that the life of the order was indefinitely prolonged by 28 U.S.C. § 1450 "until dissolved or modified by the district court."


1. Whether state law or Rule 65(b) is controlling, the restraining order expired long before the date of the alleged contempt, since, under the State Code of Civil Procedure, a temporary restraining order is returnable no later than 15 days from its date, 20 days if good cause is shown, and must be dissolved unless the party obtaining it proceeds to submit its case for a preliminary injunction, and similarly, under Rule 65(b), such an order must expire by its own terms within 10 days after entry, 20 days if good cause is shown. Pp. 415 U. S. 431-433.

Page 415 U. S. 424

2. Section 1450 was not intended to give state court injunctions greater effect after removal to federal court than they would have had if the case had remained in state court, and it should be construed in a manner consistent with the time limitations of Rule 65(b). Pp. 415 U. S. 434-440.

(a) Once a case has been removed to federal court, federal law, including the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, controls the future course of proceedings, notwithstanding state court orders issued prior to removal. The underlying purpose of § 1450 (to ensure that no lapse in a state court temporary restraining order will occur simply by removing the case to federal court) and the policies reflected in the time limitations of Rule 65(b) (stringent restrictions on the availability of ex parte restraining orders) can be accommodated by applying the rule that such a state court pre-removal order remains in force after removal no longer than it would have remained in effect under state law, but in no event longer than the Rule 65(b) time limitations, measured from the date of removal. Pp. 415 U. S. 435-440.

(b) Accordingly, the order expired, by its terms, on May 30, 1970, under the 10-day limitation of Rule 65(b) applied from the date of removal; hence, no order was in effect on November 30, 1970, and the Union violated no order when it resumed its strike at that time. P. 415 U. S. 440.

3. The District Court's denial of the Union's motion to dissolve the restraining order did not effectively convert the order into a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration. Pp. 415 U. S. 440-445.

(a) That the Union may have had the opportunity to be heard on the merits of the preliminary injunction when it moved to dissolve the restraining order is not the controlling factor, since, under Rule 65(b), the burden was on petitioners to show that they were entitled to a preliminary injunction, not on the Union to show that they were not. Pp. 415 U. S. 142-443.

(b) Where a court intends to supplant a temporary restraining order, which, under Rule 65(b), expires by its own terms within 10 days of issuance, with a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration pending a final decision on the merits or further order of the court, it should issue an order clearly saying so, and where it has not done so, a party against whom a temporary restraining order has issued may reasonably assume that the order has expired within Rule 65(b)'s time limits. Here, since the only orders entered were a temporary restraining order and an order denying a motion to dissolve the temporary order, the Union had

Page 415 U. S. 425

no reason to believe that a preliminary injunction of unlimited duration had been issued. Pp. 415 U. S. 443-445.

472 F.2d 764, affirmed.

MARSHALL, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which DOUGLAS, BRENNAN, WHITE, and BLACKMUN, JJ., joined. REHNQUIST, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which BURGER, C.J., and STEWART and POWELL, JJ., joined, post, p. 415 U. S. 445.

Primary Holding

When a state court issues an ex parte temporary restraining order before the case is removed to federal court, the order remains in effect until it would have remained in effect under state law, or no longer than Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 would permit.


Granny Goose Foods, Inc. sued the Brotherhood Teamsters in state court for violating collective bargaining agreements between the parties by engaging in strikes. It received a temporary restraining order that prevented the Teamsters from engaging in strikes, but the Teamsters removed the case to federal court and then moved to dissolve the temporary restraining order. This motion was unsuccessful, but the Teamsters began to strike months later. Granny Goose brought a motion to have the Teamsters held in contempt, and they responded that the temporary restraining order had expired. The lower court agreed with Granny Goose on the basis that the order remained effective because it had denied the earlier motion to dissolve it, and 28 U.S.C. Section 1450 kept the order in effect until the court had taken a definitive action to dissolve or modify it.



  • Thurgood Marshall (Author)
  • William Orville Douglas
  • William Joseph Brennan, Jr.
  • Byron Raymond White
  • Harry Andrew Blackmun

The temporary restraining order that originally had been issued by the state court had expired long before the behavior giving rise to the contempt motion began. Under Section 527 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, under which the court had issued the order, these orders must last no more than 15 days, or 20 days if good cause is shown, unless the holder of the temporary restraining order proceeds to seek a preliminary injunction. Similarly, under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(b), a temporary restraining order lasts only for 10 days, and for 20 days if good cause was shown. No contempt could be found because the order no longer existed.


  • William Hubbs Rehnquist (Author)
  • Warren Earl Burger
  • Potter Stewart
  • Lewis Franklin Powell, Jr.

Removing a case to federal court after a state court has issued a temporary restraining order does not extend the duration of that order past the termination date to which it would have been subject under state law. Thus, any discussion of Rule 65(b) is irrelevant because it has no application here.

Case Commentary

A petition for removal and the associated bond now are filed in federal court rather than state court, a change that dates from the mid-twentieth century.

Disclaimer: Justia Annotations is a forum for attorneys to summarize, comment on, and analyze case law published on our site. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. Contacting Justia or any attorney through this site, via web form, email, or otherwise, does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Disclaimer: Official Supreme Court case law is only found in the print version of the United States Reports. Justia case law is provided for general informational purposes only, and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. We make no warranties or guarantees about the accuracy, completeness, or adequacy of the information contained on this site or information linked to from this site. Please check official sources.