American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Henderson, Civ. A. No. 2831.
| Decision Date | 26 October 1945 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2831. |
| Parties | AMERICAN TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH CO. v. HENDERSON. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Georgia |
Neely, Marshall & Greene, of Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff.
W. S. Northcutt and Rache Bell, both of Atlanta, Ga., for defendant.
The above case came on for trial upon defendant's motion to dismiss.
It appears from plaintiff's original petition for declaratory judgment filed March 3, 1945, and additional petition for restraining order filed October 8, 1945, that defendant wrote plaintiff on February 24, 1945 advising it of his claim for additional compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. By clear implication, defendant advised plaintiff that he would file suit upon such claim, if not satisfied, in the State court prior to the running of the statute of limitations, which was imminent. It further appears from the petition that upon receipt of said letter plaintiff promptly. on March 3, 1945, filed this suit for judgment declaring that defendant was not entitled to recover any overtime payments whatsoever upon the ground that his employment did not come within the purview of the Fair Labor Standards Act.
Upon the filing of this anticipatory suit, defendant filed suit in the Superior Court of Fulton County upon his said claim on March 7, 1945.
The plaintiff in this case filed a plea in abatement in the State court which was, upon the hearing, decided against it and the State court case left pending for trial upon the merits.
Under the Federal statute, the Federal courts and State courts have concurrent jurisdiction over actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act. But it is within a sound judicial discretion whether a court takes jurisdiction in a suit for declaratory judgment.
There is nothing appearing in this case, as disclosed by plaintiff's petitions, which makes necessary or proper a declaratory judgment. There are no special defenses which plaintiff could not raise in the State court but could raise here. Furthermore, it appears that the action for declaratory judgment was filed in an effort to permit plaintiff to select the jurisdiction in which to try the issues involved, a right, in the absence of any special grounds, which ordinarily belongs to the person having a claim to enforce.
The proceeding for declaratory judgment is not intended to afford a defendant an opportunity to choose the forum nor to defend an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gray v. New Mexico Military Institute
...Declaratory Judgments, Second Edition, Vol. 1, p. 439; cf. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America v. Kellas, supra; American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Henderson, D.C.Ga., 63 F.Supp. 347; Borchard, Declaratory Judgments, Second Edition, pp. 8 See specially concurring opinion of Judge Murrah in Snow v.......
-
Shell Oil Company v. Frusetta
...321, 324; National Cancer Hospital of America v. Webster, 2 Cir., 1958, 251 F.2d 466, 468. See also American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Henderson, D.C.N.D. Ga.1945, 63 F.Supp. 347. Shell attempts to place itself outside the rule stated above by arguing that it is an abuse of discretion to......
-
Berlitz School of Languages v. Donnelly & Suess
...with a new choice of tribunals, see ?tna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Quarles, supra, 92 F.2d at page 324; American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Henderson, D.C., 63 F.Supp. 347, nor to accomplish that which could not be done under the removal statute, see American Automobile Insurance Co. v. Fr......
-
Gribin v. HAMMER GALLERIES, A DIV. OF HAMMER HOLDINGS
...id., or that its "rights could be fully protected" only by a declaratory action. Id. at 430 n. 4 (citing American Telephone & Telegraph v. Henderson, 63 F.Supp. 347, 347 (N.D.Ga.1945)). Significantly, the court also went on to hold that the insureds had not been unreasonable in not filing a......