Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Charlet
Decision Date | 17 March 1942 |
Docket Number | No. 435.,435. |
Citation | 43 F. Supp. 981 |
Parties | GREAT LAKES DREDGE & DOCK CO. et al. v. CHARLET, Administrator, Division of Employment Security, Louisiana Department of Labor. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana |
Deutsch and Kerrigan and Eberhard P. Deutsch, all of New Orleans, La., and Ryan, Condon & Livingston, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.
W. C. Perrault, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Aubrey B. Hirsch, Gen. Counsel, Division of Employment Security, etc., of Baton Rouge, La., for defendant.
The eight plaintiffs herein are all engaged in the dredging business.
They seek a declaratory judgment against the Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana who is officially charged with the enforcement and administration of the Louisiana Unemployment Compensation Law, or Act No. 97 of 1936, which has been amended by Act No. 164 of 1938, Act No. 16 of the First Extra Session of 1940 and Act Nos. 10 and 11 of 1940.
As Section 18 of the statute originally read, there was excepted (Sec. 18 (g) (7) from the term "employment", as defined therein, any service "performed as an officer or member of the crew of a vessel on the navigable waters of the United States."
Under the amendment by Act. No. 164 of 1938, this verbiage was changed into that which subsists until the present, so that the particular service excepted under Section 18(g) (6) (C) is that "performed as an officer or member of the crew of a vessel on the navigable waters of the United States customarily operating between ports in this State and ports outside this State" (Italics supplied).
The plaintiffs contend that insofar as this provision operates an inclusion, within the "employment" defined by the statute, of the crew officers and members of vessels owned and operated by them within the State of Louisiana, Section 18 is null, void and of no effect as violative of Section 2 of Article 3 and Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution of the United States; which constitutional provisions, plaintiffs aver, vest Congress with the exclusive power to legislate concerning matters within the admiralty and maritime jurisdiction of the United States and deprive the States of all power to legislate relative thereto; and plaintiffs pray that there be rendered a declaratory judgment so decreeing the claimed unconstitutionality.
A motion to dismiss the action for the alleged reason that the complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted because it does not set out a valid cause or right of action was first filed and was followed by the defendant's answer, but with full reservation of all rights under said motion to dismiss.
The defendant asserts his intention to officially enforce each and every provision of the law under attack and avers that an agreed statement of facts is on file in the record, wherefrom one may determine the character of the operations carried on by the plaintiffs, etc.
The matter was submitted to the Court upon such stipulation, which includes the following pertinent statements of fact, to-wit:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
United States v. State Tax Commission
...required of them was unconstitutional. The district court held the tax constitutional, and was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, 43 F.Supp. 981 (E.D.La.1942), 134 F.2d 213 (5th Cir. 1943). The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of dismissal, "but solely on the ground that, in the appropria......
-
City of Houston v. Standard-Triumph Motor Company
...with full reservation of all rights under its motion to dismiss. See the opinion of the district court in Great Lakes Dredge and Dock Co. v. Charlet, E.D.La.1942, 43 F.Supp. 981, 983. In the present case there was no motion to dismiss. The defendants not only formally admitted that the cour......
-
United States v. Food and Grocery Bureau of So. Cal.
......114, 116, 66 L.Ed. 284, 21 A.L.R. 1093, apply with great force: "It is plain that the only element lacking in this ......
-
Great Lakes Dredge Dock Co v. Huffman
...district court held the statute applicable to petitioners and their employees and, as applied to them, a valid exercise of state power. 43 F.Supp. 981. The formal judgment ordered dismissal of the suit, but it is to be interpreted in the light of the court's opinion, findings, and conclusio......