Adams v. Long, 1670.
Decision Date | 31 December 1943 |
Docket Number | No. 1670.,1670. |
Citation | 65 F. Supp. 310 |
Parties | ADAMS v. LONG et al. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
E. Robert Klein, of Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.
H. M. Langworthy, Carl D. Matz, Clyde J. Linde, and E. F. Halstead, all of Kansas City, Mo. (Langworthy, Matz & Linde, of Kansas City, Mo., of counsel), for defendants.
The question for decision in this case is whether a federal question appears from the face of the complaint, and, even if so, whether this court should exercise jurisdiction. The suit is filed under the provision of Section 216, Title 29 U.S.C.A., being the Fair Labor Standards Act, and the total amount claimed is $1,161.10. It is a claim for overtime under Section 207 of said Title 29 U.S.C.A. The only averment in the complaint pertinent to the question under discussion is as follows: "* * * that at all times herein mentioned there were in full force and effect the following statutes and Executive Orders of the United States of America and the President thereof, to wit:—The Act known as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 * * * hereinafter referred to as the Act and Executive Order number 9240 and (Executive Order number 9248 40 U.S.C.A. § 326 note), hereinafter referred to as `Executive Orders'; that under and by virtue of the terms of said Act and of said Executive Orders, the defendants were obligated to pay this plaintiff upon an hourly basis for each hour of work within any work week up to forty hours inclusive, at the rate of ninety-three and three quarters cents ($.9375) per hour; for each hour in excess of forty hours in any work week at hourly rate of one dollar forty and six tenths cents (1.406) and for Sunday work, where such Sunday work was the seventh day in his work week, at the rate of one dollar and eighty seven and one half cents per hour ($1.875)."
The petition for removal contains a recital that: "It appears upon the face of plaintiff's said petition that the plaintiff in this action seeks to recover from defendants additional compensation or wages amounting to $443.05, and a further sum of $443.05 as liquidated damages, and an attorney fee in the sum of $275.00, alleged by plaintiff to be due him under and pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Act known as the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 * * * and under and pursuant to the terms and provisions of Executive Order No. 9240, Executive Order No. 9248."
The petition for removal makes mention of other Acts of Congress not included or referred to in the complaint. The defendants then conclude that:
1. Preliminary statements of the law as a postulate and background for a decision should be made:
Moreover, "A genuine and present controversy, not merely a possible or conjectural one, must exist with reference thereto * * * and the controversy must be disclosed upon the face of the complaint, unaided by the answer or by the petition for removal." Gully v. First National Bank, 299 U.S. 109, loc.cit. 112, 113, 57 S.Ct. 96, 97, 81 L.Ed. 70.
In the foregoing lucid opinion, Mr. Justice Cardozo (loc.cit. 113 of 299 U.S., loc.cit. 98 of 57 S.Ct., 81 L.Ed. 70) suggested that theretofore the courts had not been as exacting as at the time the opinion was delivered; observe his language:
The court then explained the more exacting rule prescribed by the courts as follows: ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olson v. REMBRANDT PRINTING COMPANY, 73 C 838 (A).
...Mfrs., Inc., 236 F.Supp. 884 (N.D.Okl.1964); Crouse v. North American Aviation of Kansas, 68 F.Supp. 934 (W.D.Mo.1946); Adams v. Long, 65 F.Supp. 310 (W.D. Mo.1943). Another basis for jurisdiction which the plaintiff has not alleged but which the Court takes note of is 28 U.S. C. § 1337 whi......
-
Johnson v. Butler Bros.
...D.C.W.D.Mo., 50 F. Supp. 161; Brockway v. Long, D.C.W.D. Mo., 55 F.Supp. 79; Wright v. Long, D. C.W.D.Mo., 65 F.Supp. 279; Adams v. Long, D.C.W.D.Mo., 65 F.Supp. 310; Young v. Arbyrd Compress Co., D.C.E.D. Mo., 66 F.Supp. 241; Crouse v. North American Aviation, Inc., D.C.W.D.Mo., 68 F.Supp.......
-
Schuster v. Highland Supply & Mfg. Co.
... ... 91. This court has jurisdiction of both ... the parties and the subject of the action: Adams v ... Long, 65 F.Supp. 310; Mizrahi v. Pandora Frocks, ... Inc., 86 F.Supp. 958. In construing ... ...
-
Harrington v. Empire Const. Co.
...case. See National Labor Relations Board v. Brown-Brockmeyer Co., 6 Cir., 143 F.2d 537; Brockway v. Long, D.C., 55 F.Supp. 79; Adams v. Long, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 310; Crabb v. Welden Bros., D.C., 65 F.Supp. 369; Steiner v. Pleasantville Constructors, Inc., Sup. App., 49 N.Y.S.2d 41; Id., 269 A......