343 F.2d 460 (2nd Cir. 1965), 188, Libutti v. Di Brizzi

Docket Nº:188, 29206.
Citation:343 F.2d 460
Party Name:Peter LIBUTTI, Charles P. McDermott and Anthony J. Gatto, each of them individually and on behalf of all other members of Local 920, International Longshoremen's Association, similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Alex Di BRIZZI, as President, or Joseph Vincenzino, as Business Agent, or Arnold Guerriero, as Secretary-Treasurer of Local 920, I
Case Date:April 01, 1965
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 460

343 F.2d 460 (2nd Cir. 1965)

Peter LIBUTTI, Charles P. McDermott and Anthony J. Gatto, each of them individually and on behalf of all other members of Local 920, International Longshoremen's Association, similarly situated, Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v.

Alex Di BRIZZI, as President, or Joseph Vincenzino, as Business Agent, or Arnold Guerriero, as Secretary-Treasurer of Local 920, International Longshoremen's Association, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 188, 29206.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

April 1, 1965

Submitted Jan. 22, 1965.

Page 461

Burton H. Hall, New York City, for plaintiffs-appellees.

Gleason & Miller, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, and MOORE and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

LUMBARD, Chief Judge:

We granted the appellants' petition for rehearing in order to reconsider their appeal in the light of Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134, 85 S.Ct. 292, 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964), reversing 324 F.2d 486 (2 Cir. 1963). We conclude that our initial disposition of the appeal, affirming the judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, was correct. While Calhoon v. Harvey casts considerable doubt on our previous interpretation of § 101(a)(1) of the LMRDA, we think that the plaintiffs have a good claim under New York law and that this claim is sufficient to sustain the judgment of the district court. 1

Under New York law a union member may enforce in the courts the rights granted to him by the union constitution and bylaws, including the right to stand for election to union office. E.g., Beiso v. Robilotto, 26 Misc.2d 137, 212 N.Y.S.2d 504 (S.Ct.1960); Maineculf v. Robinson, 19 Misc.2d 230, 189 N.Y.S.2d 712 (S.Ct.1958). The appellants have not disputed this proposition or suggested any reason why a New York court would not deem the admitted disregard of union rules in this case an appropriate occasion for injunctive relief. They instead assert that the district court lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and that the plaintiffs should be required first to exhaust their remedies within the union.

Jurisdiction over the state-law claim exists under the principle of pendent jurisdiction: The federal claim, far from being frivolous, was upheld by the district court and by this court, and there has been no contention that a New York court would require facts beyond those already found before granting...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP