General Electric Company v. Bootz Manufacturing Company

• Decision Date: 13 August 1968
• Docket Number: No. EV 68-C-72.,EV 68-C-72.
• Citation: 289 F. Supp. 504
• Parties: GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BOOTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Defendant. Raymond Murphy, Vernon Sallee, et al., On Behalf of Local 215, International Union of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers of America, Intervenors.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of Indiana

289 F. Supp. 504

GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. BOOTZ MANUFACTURING COMPANY, Inc., Defendant.

Raymond Murphy, Vernon Sallee, et al., On Behalf of Local 215, International Union of Teamsters, Chauffeurs and Helpers of America, Intervenors.

No. EV 68-C-72.

United States District Court S. D. Indiana, Evansville Division.

August 13, 1968.

Bamberger, Foreman, Oswald & Hahn, Evansville, Ind., for plaintiff.

McCray, Clark, Statham & McCray, Evansville, Ind., for defendant.

Denton & Gerling, Winfield K. Denton, Gary L. Gerling and Rodney H. Grove, Evansville, Ind., for intervening petitioners.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DILLIN, District Judge.

Heretofore, on August 8, 1968, the plaintiff filed in this court its complaint for replevin, alleging that it was the owner and entitled to the immediate possession of certain personal property held by the defendant, consisting of tools and equipment, manufactured parts, and raw material, all of the value of $33,000.00. It further alleged that prior to the commencement of the action plaintiff had demanded possession of such personal property of and from the defendant, which demand was refused. The complaint was verified on information and belief, and, agreeable to the Indiana replevin statutes, Burns' Indiana Statutes, Section 3-2701 et seq, plaintiff filed an affidavit for immediate possession in the language of the statute, alleging, among other things, that said personal property was wrongfully and unlawfully detained by the defendant. Pursuant to such affidavit, and again in conformity with the Indiana statutes,¹ the clerk of this court issued a writ, ordering the United States Marshal to seize the property, and to deliver it to the plaintiff under certain circumstances.²

On August 9, 1968, the intervenors filed their verified petition to intervene in the action, alleging that the same was collusive, and brought for the sole purpose of using this court and the United States Marshal as an agency for obtaining the delivery of the property from the defendant to the plaintiff, such parties being unable or unwilling to effect the delivery thereof as between themselves by reason of a strike to the plant of the defendant brought by the members of Local 215 employed at such plant. The relief prayed for by the intervenors was that execution of the writ of replevin be stayed. The court, in an ex parte proceeding, granted the petition to intervene, entered a temporary order staying the United States Marshal from executing the writ, and assigned the matter for hearing on August 14, 1968, on the issue of whether or not the temporary stay should be made permanent.

At the hearing, the plaintiff and defendant each appeared by counsel, and the intervenors appeared in person and by counsel. From the evidence heard, I make the following findings of fact: Defendant's employees went on strike July 1, 1968, and since that time defendant's manufacturing operations have been completely shut down. Peaceful picketing has taken place since the beginning of the strike. Various customers of defendant, including plaintiff and other manufacturing concerns, have been desirous of obtaining manufactured items, work in process, raw materials, dies, tools and fixtures from the struck plant, but have been unwilling to cross the picket line. Common carriers by truck have been unwilling to cross the picket line. All of such property, excepting a part of the tools, dies and fixtures, is the property of defendant until delivered to its customers, and defendant's possession of the nonowned tools, dies and fixtures is lawful. There has been no bona fide antecedent demand for, nor wrongful refusal of delivery of any of the items.

In order to effect the delivery of the above items to its customers, without either party appearing to cross the picket lines, the defendant and its customers, including plaintiff, agreed to a scheme suggested by defendant's counsel. The scheme contemplated that a customer would file a replevin action in an appropriate State or Federal court, asserting its own ownership and right to immediate possession of the personal property it wanted to obtain, that defendant would promptly answer and agree to entry of judgment for its customer, and that thereafter the Sheriff or Marshal would perforce be required to cross the picket line, pick up the items, and deliver them pursuant to a writ of replevin. Alternatively, the plaintiff-customer would file an affidavit for immediate possession, post the appropriate bond, and secure the same result even before entry of judgment. This plan was actually put into successful operation in five separate State court cases over a period of about three weeks prior to the filing of this action! Such an action is the one here under scrutiny.

Conclusions of Law

Prior to the commencement of the hearing, plaintiff moved to dismiss the intervening petition for want of jurisdiction, primarily on the basis that intervenors had no interest in the subject matter of the action. The motion was overruled, as it is my opinion that Rule 24(a) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, is broad enough to support intervention as a matter of right. Although it is true that the intervenors had and claimed no interest in the specific personal property described in the complaint, it seems to me that the local union, and the intervenors, as representative of it, certainly had an interest...