McClain, et al v. Lufkin Industries, et al

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
August 31, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
In the
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
___________________
m 03-41613
_________________
SYLVESTER MCCLAIN,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
BUFORD THOMAS,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
PATRICK ROSS,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
MARY THOMAS,
ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
EDDIE K. MASK,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
LEROY GARNER,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
SHERRY CALLOWAY SWINT,
ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
JOHN DOE,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
FLORINE THOMPSON,
ON HER OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
JOHN DOE, III,
ALSO KNOWN AS “C,”
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
CLIFFORD R. DUIRDEN,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
EARL POTTS,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
RONALD MARK,
ON HIS OWN BEHALF AND ON BEHALF OF A CLASS OF SIMILARLY SITUATED PERSONS;
PLAINTIFF CLASS,
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

-- 1 of 2 --

2
VERSUS
LUFKIN INDUSTRIES, INC.,
Defendant-Appellee,
VERSUS
GLASS, MOLDERS, POTTERY, PLASTICS & ALLIED WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION, LOCAL NO. 429, AFL-CIO/CLC;
INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS,
LOCAL LODGE NO. 1999, AFL-CIO/CLC;
INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF BOILERMAKERS, IRON SHIP BUILDERS,
BLACKSMITHS, FORGERS & HELPERS, LOCAL NO. 587, AFL-CIO/CLC,
Movants-Appellants.
___________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Texas
m 9:97-CV-63
___________________
Before KING, Chief Judge, SMITH and
EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM.*
The union appeals the denial of its motion
to intervene. We have reviewed the briefs and
pertinent portions of the record and have heard
the oral argument s of counsel. Finding no
reversible error, we AFFIRM, essentially for
the reasons given by the district court.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has de-
termined that this opinion should not be published and
is not precedent except under the limited circum-
stances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

-- 2 of 2 --