Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Bronze Co., Civil Action No. 24490.
| Decision Date | 23 July 1947 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. 24490. |
| Parties | FAJACK et al. v. CLEVELAND GRAPHITE BRONZE CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Ohio |
Edward Lamb, of Toledo, Ohio, for plaintiff.
Smith, Bellamy, Dill & Hopkins, of Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.
The basis for the liability sought to be imposed in this case as laid does not conform to the requirements of the so-called Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, approved May 14, 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq. The complaint, therefore, will be dismissed without prejudice.
If the plaintiffs are able to bring an action alleging essential facts respecting unpaid overtime and for valid compensable time as is required by the new Act, the opportunity is not foreclosed.
If, as is suggested, the constitutionality of the statute is to be put in issue it would be far better to have such challenge incorporated in a new complaint.
Amendment or supplement to the complaint was suggested but complications in pleading are apprehended in an attempt to re-form pleadings in pending actions, particularly where a new statute imposing conditions has intervened.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
...v. Aluminum Co. of America, D.C., 73 F. Supp. 727; Johnson v. Park City Consol. Mines Co., D.C., 73 F.Supp. 852; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C., 73 F. Supp. 308; Ditto et al. v. American Aluminum Co., D.C., 73 F.Supp. 955; May et al. v. General Motors Corporation, D.C., 73 F.Supp. 8......
-
Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
...Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C. Or., 72 F.Supp. 21; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co., D.C.N.D.Tex., 71 F.Supp. 929; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.N. D.Ohio, 73 F.Supp. 308; Lasater et al. v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn., 73 F.Supp. 264.2 It seems clear enough that the motions to d......
-
Johnson v. Park City Consol. Mines Co., 5119.
...73 F.Supp. 288; Story et al. v. Todd Houston Ship Building Corporation, D.C.Tex.1947, 72 F.Supp. 690; Fajak v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.Ohio 1947, 73 F.Supp. 308. There are cases to the contrary. Deaton v. Titusville Building Corporation, D.C.N.Y.1947, 72 F.Supp. 986; Lemme v. La Rosa & ......
-
Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co., Civil Actions No. 935-937.
...v. Electro, etc., Co., D.C.Or., supra. See also Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.Wash., 73 F.Supp. 288; Fajack v. Cleveland, etc., Co., D.C.Ohio, 73 F.Supp. 308; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.Tenn., 73 F.Supp. 264; Ackerman v. J. I. Case Company, D.C.Wis., 74 F.Supp. The o......