Studio Carpenters Local Union v. Loew's Incorporated
| Decision Date | 27 May 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 8864.,8864. |
| Citation | 84 F. Supp. 675 |
| Parties | STUDIO CARPENTERS LOCAL UNION NO 946 v. LOEW'S INCORPORATED et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of California |
Zack Lamar Cobb, Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.
Bodkin, Breslin & Luddy, Los Angeles, Cal. for defendants the I.A.T.S.E. and Brewer.
O'Melveny & Myers, Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Motion Picture Companies.
This is a companion case to Schatte v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emp., No. 6063, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 1008; Id., No. 7304 D.C., 84 F.Supp. 669, and Mackay v. Loews Incorporated, § No. 8770, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 676.
For all practical purposes the allegations of the complaint in this case are identical with those in the complaint considered in 7304, except that in this case there is no attempt to state separate causes of action. All the allegations are contained here in one cause of action. The parties defendant are the same. The difference lies in the fact that here the Union (Carpenter's Local 946) of which the plaintiffs in Number 7304 were members, is the only party plaintiff, and this is designated a complaint for declaratory relief, instead of a complaint for damages as in No. 7304. The prayer is couched for specific declaratory relief, and for such other and further "declaratory" relief as is deemed proper.
What was said in my Memorandum in No. 7304, and in Judge Harrison's opinion in Schatte v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emp., D.C., 70 F.Supp. 1008, with relation to the allegations concerning asserted violations of civil rights, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U. S. Constitution, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., and the Antitrust Laws, applies with equal force to the complaint in this case.
The first question to be disposed of is whether or not the Taft-Hartley Act in Secs. 301 and 303, 29 U.S.C. §§ 185, 187, authorize a suit by a Union for declaratory relief.
Diversity of citizenship not being present, the complaint does not state a claim for relief under Section 303. That matter is more fully discussed in the Memorandum filed in 7304, and will not be here repeated.
The plaintiffs being a "labor organization" are appropriate parties plaintiff under Sec. 301.
The defendants contend that the suits authorized under Section 301 of the Act are limited to suits for damages, and cite United Packing House Workers v. Wilson & Co., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 563. I cannot agree with that narrow construction of Section 301. The statement to that effect in United Packing House Workers v. Wilson & Co., supra, appears arguendo in a discussion to the effect that the injunction there asked was not authorized by Section 301. It is thus dicta. Had Congress intended that the suits authorized by Sec. 301 should have been only suits for damages, it would have been a simple thing to have included that word in the language of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Associated Tel. Co. v. Communication Workers
...American Federation of Labor v. Western Union Tel., supra, held injunction would lie under Sec. 301(a). Studio Carpenters Local Union 946 v. Loew's, Inc., D.C.S.C.1949, 84 F.Supp. 675, was affirmed in 9 Cir., 182 F.2d 168, certiorari denied 340 U.S. 828, 71 S.Ct. 64, 95 L.Ed. 608, on a grou......
-
Black-Clawson Co., Inc. v. International Ass'n of Mach.
...etc., Workers, 167 F.Supp. 817, 818 (D.Conn.1958), appeal dismissed, 269 F.2d 618 (2d Cir. 1959); Studio Carpenters Local Union No. 946 v. Loew's Inc., 84 F.Supp. 675 (S.D.Cal.1949).3 We find nothing in the history of section 301(a) which indicates an intention to restrict that section to s......
-
Food & Service Trades Council v. Retail Associates
...& Co., Inc. v. United Packing-House Workers of America, D.C.S.D. N.Y.1949, 83 F.Supp. 162; Studio Carpenters Local Union No. 946 v. Loew's Incorporated, D.C.S.D.Cal.C.D.1949, 84 F.Supp. 675; United Steel Workers of America v. Shakespeare Co., D.C.W.D. Mich.S.D.1949, 84 F.Supp. 267; Reed v. ......
-
Textile Workers Union of America v. Arista Mills Co.
...Union Tel. Co., 6 Cir., 179 F.2d 535, 538; Schatte v. International Alliance, etc., 9 Cir., 182 F.2d 158; Studio Carpenters Local Union v. Leow's, Incorporated, D. C., 84 F.Supp. 675; Wilson & Co. v. United Packinghouse Workers, D. C., 83 F.Supp. 162; note 17 A.L.R.2d 625. There is nothing ......