Dersch v. United Mine Workers of America W. & R. Fund
| Decision Date | 20 November 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. EV 69-C-47.,EV 69-C-47. |
| Citation | 309 F. Supp. 395 |
| Parties | George Henry DERSCH, Plaintiff, v. UNITED MINE WORKERS OF AMERICA WELFARE AND RETIREMENT FUND, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana |
Arthur Griffith, Evansville, Ind., for plaintiff.
Welly K. Hopkins, Harold H. Bacon, Washington, D. C., McCray, Clark, Statham & McCray, Evansville, Ind., for defendant.
This cause comes before the Court on the motion of W. A. Boyle, C. W. Davis and Josephine Roche, as Trustees of the named defendant United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund of 1950 ("the Fund") to dismiss, or in lieu thereof, to quash the service of process herein. Various points are presented, which will each be discussed despite the lack of assistance from plaintiff, who has failed to file an answer brief as required by local rule 7 of this Court.
Plaintiff is a retired coal miner and member of the United Mine Workers of America (U.M.W.A.) according to his complaint. He claims to be a beneficiary of the Fund and entitled to past and future retirement benefits for which he has applied and been refused. The action, filed in the Superior Court of Vanderburgh County, Indiana, seeks damages of $9,999.00 and a continuing pension. The Trustees removed it to this Court on the theory that, if entitled at all, plaintiff would be entitled to recover substantially more than $10,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs; such allegation has not been traversed, and no motion to remand has been filed. Plaintiff and all Trustees of the Fund, which has its business situs in Washington, D. C., are citizens of different states, so that this Court has jurisdiction of the action pursuant to Title 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) in the absence of special factors.
The Fund is an irrevocable trust created by the Trust Instrument contained in the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, pursuant to the authority and terms of Section 302(c) (5), Labor Management Relations Act, Title 29 U.S.C. § 186(c) (5). Many court decisions recognize the Fund to be a trust. Lewis v. Benedict Coal Corp., 361 U.S. 459, 80 S.Ct. 489, 4 L. Ed.2d 442; Kosty v. Lewis, 1963, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 319 F.2d 744; Lewis v. Quality Coal Corporation, 7 Cir., 1957, 243 F.2d 769.
Inasmuch as the Fund is a trust, it may not be sued as an entity, but rather the action must be brought against the Trustees thereof individually. Yonce v. Miners Memorial Hospital Ass'n, W.D. Va., 1958, 161 F.Supp. 178. It follows that the motion to dismiss on the ground that the Fund is not a suable entity is well taken.
Jurisdiction of This Court Over a "Trust of Movables"
It is argued by the Trustees that since the Fund is a trust with its place of business in Washington, D. C., and that its res consists solely of personal property located only in the District of Columbia, it is a trust of movables, the administration of which may be reviewed only by the courts of the District. Although some courts have agreed with this position, I do not believe it to be sound in view of the nature and method of operation of this particular trust.
As a matter of fact, the Fund does not appear to be supervised in a formal sense by any court anywhere as would be true, for example, in the case of a testamentary trust regularly docketed in a court of probate jurisdiction. On the contrary, the document creating the Fund provides:
"Subject to the stated purposes of this Fund, the Trustees shall have full authority, within the terms and provisions of the `Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947', and other applicable law, with respect to questions of coverage and eligibility, priorities among classes of benefits, amounts of benefits, methods of providing or arranging for provisions for benefits, investment of trust funds, and all other related matters."
In analyzing the scope of judicial review which the courts of the District of Columbia may exercise with respect to the Fund, in view of the broad grant of power to its Trustees, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held that the same is limited to a determination of whether the action of the Trustees in a given case was arbitrary and capricious. Kosty v. Lewis, 1963, 115 U.S.App.D.C. 343, 319 F.2d 744; Danti v. Lewis, 1962, 114 U.S. App.D.C. 105, 312 F.2d 345. In other words, the Trustees are not required to, and do not operate generally under the supervision and direction of a court, as would be true in the case of many more conventional trusts.
Equally to the point, jurisdiction to hear the claims of aggrieved coal miners has not been limited in the District of Columbia to one particular court, but on the contrary, cases have been initiated both in the United States District Court, cf. Hobbs v. Lewis, D.C., 1958, 159 F. Supp. 282; Harper v. Lewis, D.C., 1960, 186 F.Supp. 285, and in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia (now District of Columbia Court of General Sessions), cf. Barlow v. Roche, Mun.Ct. App.Dist.Col., 1960, 161 A.2d 58; Gambrell v. Lewis, Mun.Ct.App.Dist.Col., 1961, 167 A.2d 605. It thus appears that the underlying rationale for § 299, Restatement, Conflict of Laws, relied on by defendant, namely the desirability of avoiding the giving of conflicting directions to trustees by two or more courts, is absent with regard to the Fund. To repeat, it simply does not take directions from any court, save as its decisions may be subjected to judicial review for the limited purpose mentioned.
Therefore, I am persuaded by what I consider to be the better reasoning as contained in such cases as Myhalyk v. Lewis, 1960, 398 Pa. 395, 158 A.2d 305, 88 A.L.R.2d 486, cert. den. 362 U.S. 989, 80 S.Ct. 1078, 4 L.Ed.2d 1022; Rittenberry v. Lewis, E.D. Tenn., 1963, 222 F. Supp. 717, aff'd., 1964, 333 F.2d 573; and George v. Lewis, D.Colo., 1964, 228 F.Supp. 725, that the "trust of movables" theory has no application, and that the mere fact that the Fund has its business situs, etc., in the District of Columbia would not, of itself, bar this Court from reviewing the action of the Trustees in a proper case, as is now done in at least Pennsylvania, Tennessee and Colorado.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
United States v. Billups
...was proper where companies were located that paid royalties into the trust fund, Dersch v. United Mine Workers of America ... Fund, 309 F.Supp. 395 (S.D.Ind.1969). Only one case dealt with venue for illegal payments under § 186(a) and In United States v. McMaster, 343 F.2d 176 (6th Cir.), c......
-
Russo v. Shapiro
... ... Civ. No. 13409 ... United States District Court, D. Connecticut ... ...
-
Lee v. Nesbitt, 25973.
...to a pension. Federal jurisdiction was based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties. Dersch v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare and Retirement Fund, 309 F.Supp. 395 (S.D.Ind.1969). Both parties made motions for summary judgment, the Court granted Lee's and this appeal The Nati......