AMALGAMATED ASS'N, ETC. v. Southern Bus Lines, 12504
| Decision Date | 24 February 1949 |
| Docket Number | No. 12504,12505.,12504 |
| Citation | 172 F.2d 946 |
| Parties | AMALGAMATED ASS'N OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY & MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, DIVISION NO. 1127, et al. v. SOUTHERN BUS LINES, Inc. (two cases). |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Fifth Circuit |
L. Barrett Jones, of Jackson, for appellants.
Grove Stafford, of Alexandria, La., J. Morgan Stevens, of Jackson, Miss., and Karl H. Mueller, of Fort Worth, Tex., for appellees.
Before SIBLEY, HOLMES, and McCORD, Circuit Judges.
These actions, brought by a labor union as a collective bargaining agency, joined by one employee, against Southern Bus Lines, Inc., as employer, are founded on the same collective contract but seek different relief. Both were dismissed for lack of venue in the district court for the Southern District of Mississippi, and because that court, if a proper venue, was forum non conveniens. The two appeals taken present the same questions.
The union is unincorporated, but has its headquarters at Shreveport, Louisiana. The employee plaintiff is an officer of the union and resides in the Southern District of Mississippi. The Southern Bus Lines is a corporation of Louisiana with its principal office at Alexandria, Louisiana, where all its records are and its officers reside, and where the collective bargaining was made. Its business of running busses is done and the collective bargain applies throughout several States, including Mississippi. In order to do business in Mississippi it has appointed an agent in that State to receive service of process in any suit. Federal jurisdiction is rested on the contention that the controversy arises out of the laws of the United States about collective bargains between employer and employees in interstate commerce. In one action it is claimed that the employer refused to arbitrate a difference as provided by the collective contract and the employees struck to force arbitration; and the relief sought is damages for loss of wages during the strike. In the other action the relief sought is a mandatory injunction to compel arbitration. We are not here concerned with the proper construction of the collective contract, or the appropriateness of either relief, which are questions not reached in the district court; but we consider only whether there is venue in the Southern District of Mississippi; and if so whether the forum is so inconvenient as to justify dismissal.
These actions were filed and dismissed before the revision of Title 28 of the United States Code Annotated took effect. In Section 1391(c) thereof it is provided: "A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes." These plaintiffs could today dismiss their appeal and bring their actions in the Southern District of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Montalvo v. Tower Life Building
... ... 854, 69 S.Ct. 83, 93 L.Ed. 402; Southern California Freight Lines v. McKeown, 9 Cir. 1945, ... ...
-
Norwood v. Kirkpatrick
...6 Cir., 188 F.2d 537; Wiren v. Laws, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 105, 194 F.2d 873. But see Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of America, etc., v. Southern Bus Lines, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 946, 948. The section itself is merely a restatement, in very generalized form, of the considerati......
-
Brown v. Woodring
...in a more appropriate forum. Amalgamated Ass'n of St., Elec. Ry. & Motor Coach Emp. of America, Division No. 1127 v. Southern Bus Lines Inc., 5 Cir., 1949, 172 F.2d 946, 948, and see All States Freight Inc. v. Modarelli, 3 Cir., 1952, 196 F.2d 1010, 1011. 2 Only where plaintiff's choice of ......
-
Jiffy Lubricator Co. v. Stewart-Warner Corporation
...R. Co., 337 U.S. 75, 69 S.Ct. 953; United States v. National City Lines, 337 U.S. 78, 69 S.Ct. 955, and Amalgamated Association, etc., v. Southern Bus Lines, 5 Cir., 172 F.2d 946, 948. As said by judge Sibley in the case last cited: "Dismissal for inconvenience is not to be visited except w......