Goettel v. Glenn Berry Mfrs., Inc.

• Decision Date: 21 December 1964
• Docket Number: Civ. No. 6069.
• Parties: Arthur GOETTEL et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLENN BERRY MFRS., INC., a corporation, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma

236 F. Supp. 884

Arthur GOETTEL et al., Plaintiffs, v. GLENN BERRY MFRS., INC., a corporation, Defendants.

Civ. No. 6069.

United States District Court N. D. Oklahoma.

December 21, 1964.

J. R. Hall, Jr., Miami, Okl., for plaintiffs.

Wallace & Owens, Miami, Okl., for defendants.

DAUGHERTY, District Judge.

Upon consideration of the Motion to Remand filed herein by the plaintiffs and the brief submitted in support thereof and opposition thereto, the Court finds said motion should be denied.

This is an action brought pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 216 (b), as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act, to recover back wages. Such an action under the Act may be brought originally either in State or Federal court by the terms of the Act, to-wit:

"Action to recover such liability may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction by any one or more employees. * * *" 29 U.S.C. § 216(b).

The language there contained gives concurrent jurisdiction to both State and Federal courts. State of Missouri ex rel. St. Louis, Brownsville & Mexico Ry. Co. v. Taylor, 266 U.S. 200, 45 S.Ct. 47, 69 L.Ed. 247. The action may be maintained in Federal courts without regard to diversity of citizenship or the amount in controversy, for the action is one that arises under a law regulating commerce. 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

This action was originally filed in State court by plaintiffs herein and subsequently removed to this Court by the defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(a), which provides:

"Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending."

The question as to the removability to the Federal Court of an action filed originally in State court under the Act has received varied treatment in many districts, other than this one, and the decisions are apparently deadlocked over the interpretation of statutory language, as has been so ably pointed out by respective counsel in their briefs. The question has yet to be laid to rest by the Supreme Court of the United States and no decision from this circuit has been brought to the Court's attention. Thus, the matter remains unsettled for this court. It would avail little herein to now enumerate and discuss the various conflicting decisions dealing with this question. The basic problem is one of ascertaining the intent of Congress when both the Fair Labor Standards Act was enacted and the general removal statute, above cited, was amended in 1948.

This Court feels actions as the instant one are removable for the...