Foster v. National Biscuit Co.
| Decision Date | 20 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 124.,124. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Washington |
| Parties | FOSTER v. NATIONAL BISCUIT CO. |
Davis & Groff, of Seattle, Wash., for plaintiff.
Venables & Lawrence, of Seattle, Wash., for defendant.
Bert H. Miller, of Seattle, Wash., amicus curiae.
This matter has come on before the Court upon defendant's motion to dismiss the above-entitled cause on the ground that the Court has no jurisdiction thereof in that it appears on the face of the complaint that the matter in controversy does not exceed or equal the sum or value of $3,000. The plaintiff has brought suit against the defendant alleging that he is invoking the jurisdiction of the Court under the provisions of the Act of June 25, 1938 (S. 2475, Public No. 718, 75th Congress, 52 Stat. 1060, U.S.Code Supp. IV, Title 29, §§ 201-219, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 201-219). Plaintiff claims $261.12 as the amount due him for time worked in excess of forty-four hours per week, and an equal amount for liquidated damages, together with interest, and in addition, for costs and attorneys' fees.
The complaint alleges that during all the times mentioned therein that "the defendant was a foreign corporation doing business in the State of Washington and operating a biscuit company in interstate commerce." However, the complaint alleges nothing further in that respect.
It is the position of the plaintiff and of the amicus curiae that this action is a suit or proceeding arising under a law of the United States regulating interstate commerce and that, therefore, same is within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court, irrespective of whether or not the matter in controversy equals or exceeds the sum or value of $3,000.00.
The defendant suggests that there is nothing in the complaint which brings the plaintiff within the provisions of Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act. Section 7(a) of the Fair Labor Standards Act provides:
Section 7(a) clearly applies only to those employees who are engaged in interstate commerce or in the production of goods for interstate commerce. The Act implies that a corporation which is engaged in interstate commerce or which is producing goods for interstate commerce may likewise, as a part of its business, be engaged in purely intrastate commerce as regards such portion of its business. Some employees of such employer might be concerned solely with the intrastate business of the employer and therefore not subject to the provisions of said Section 7(a).
Plaintiff and amicus curiae both submit that ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Walling v. Mutual Wholesale Food & Supply Co.
...Co., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 964; Veazey Drug Co. v. Fleming, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 689; Klotz v. Ippolito, D.C., 40 F.Supp. 422; Foster v. National Biscuit Co. D.C., 31 F.Supp. 552; Lipson v. Socony Vacuum Corp., 1 Cir., 87 F.2d 265; Atlantic Coastline R. Co., v. Standard Oil, 275 U.S. 257, 48 S. Ct. ......
-
Walling v. Goldblatt Bros., 7892.
...Nos. 1 and 4; Jax Beer Co. v. Redfern, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 172; Jewel Tea Co. v. Williams, 10 Cir., 118 F.2d 202; Foster v. National Biscuit Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 552; Gerdert v. Certified Poultry & Egg Co., D.C., 38 F.Supp. 964; Eddings v. Southern Dairies, D.C., 42 F.Supp. 664, 667; Fleming ......
-
Seese v. Bethlehem Steel Co.
...dismissal on motion. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corporation, 298 U.S. 178, 189, 56 S.Ct. 780, 80 L.Ed. 1135; Foster v. National Biscuit Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 552 (a suit under the F.L.S.A.); Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D. Wash., 73 F.Supp. 288, Leavy, D. J. (a po......
-
Agnew v. Johnson
...L. & W. Ry., 239 U.S. 556; Pedersen v. Delaware, L. & W. Ry., 229 U.S. 146; Walling v. Jacksonville, 317 U.S. 564; Foster v. National Biscuit Co., 31 F.Supp. 552. (7) It is the character rather than the size of an activity which is the controlling feature. Davis v. Goodman Rubber Co., 133 F......