Opinion
Nos. 89-7279, 89-7451 and 89-7505.
June 22, 1990.
Wesley Pipes, Lyons, Pipes Cook, P.C., Mobile, Ala., Peter C. Lambos, Constantine P. Lambos, Conato Caruso, Lambos Giardino, New York City, Carriers Container Council.
William B. Harvey, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes Reeves, Edward A. Dean, Michael A. Figures, Figures, Jackson Harris, Mobile, Ala., for Mobile Steamship Assoc., et al.
Paul Myrick, Frank McRight, McRight, Jackson, Myrick Moore, Michael A. Figures, Figures, Jackson Harris, Mobile, Ala., for Mobile Steamship Assn., et al.
J. Cecil Gardner, Gardner, Middlebrooks Fleming, P.C., Mobile, Ala., for ILA Local 1985, et al.
William B. Harvey, Edward A. Dean, Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes Reeves, Mobile, Ala., for MSSA-ILA Pension Plan, et al.
Francis A. Scanlan, Scanlan Scanlan, P.C., Stanley B. Gruber, Freedman Lorry, P.C., Philadelphia, Pa., for Trustees of the PMTA-ILA Pension Fund, et al.
Ernest L. Mathews, New York City, for ILA, AFL-CIO amicus curiae.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama; William Brevard Hand and Charles R. Butler, JJ.
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND SUGGESTION FOR REHEARING EN BANC (Opinion March 22, 1990, 11th Cir., 1990, 896 F.2d 1330)Before KRAVITCH and JOHNSON, Circuit Judges, and TUTTLE, Senior Circuit Judge:
Upon consideration of the petition for rehearing, that part of the opinion appearing in the published slip opinion on page 2200 [ 896 F.2d at 1340] reading: "This language from the agreement, and the parties' characterizations relied on by the district court,[18] support the conclusion that CCC funds were intended to benefit the local port plans only and should not be returned to the carriers.[19]" is stricken and the following is substituted therefor: "This language from the agreement supports the conclusion that CCC funds were intended to benefit the local port plans only and should not be returned to the carriers.[18]"
Footnote 18 in the slip opinion is stricken.
Other than the above changes, the petition(s) for Rehearing are DENIED and no member of this panel nor other Judge in regular active service on the Court having requested that the Court be polled on rehearing en banc (Rule 35, Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-5), the Suggestion(s) of Rehearing En Banc are DENIED.