Homewood Theatre v. Loew's Inc., Civ. No. 2698.
| Decision Date | 27 September 1951 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 2698. |
| Citation | 101 F. Supp. 76 |
| Parties | HOMEWOOD THEATRE, Inc., et al. v. LOEW'S Inc. et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Lee Loevinger and Larson, Loevinger, Lindquist & Freeman, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiffs.
Joseph W. Finley, Mandt Torrison and Bundlie, Kelley, Finley and Maun, all of St. Paul, Minn., for Minnesota Amusement Co. and Paramount Pictures, Inc.
David Shearer and Shearer, Byard, Trogner & Peters, all of Minneapolis, Minn., for remaining defendants.
* * * * * *
"(5) For the recovery of wages, overtime, damages, fees or penalties accruing under any federal or state law respecting the payment of wages, overtime, damages, fees or penalties, (the term `wages' as used herein shall mean all remuneration for services or employment, including commissions and bonuses and the cash value of all remuneration in any medium other than cash, where the relationship of master and servant exists)." (Emphasis supplied.)
Defendants contend that the word "damages" includes damages sought in any action which arises under a federal or state statute. Plaintiffs contend that the word includes only damages sought in a wage action which arises under a federal or state statute. Section 541.07(5) does not expressly indicate the scope or application of the term. Consequently, the meaning is not clear and interpretation is proper, and that interpretation must be made in light of the history and purpose of the statute. For "the conditions that have prompted its enactment may sometimes assist in throwing light on the meaning of its language or the scope of its application." Kendall v. Keith Furnace Co., 8 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 1002, at 1006.
Section 541.07(5) was enacted in Minnesota, as were similar ones in many other states, when the so-called portal to portal actions were flooding the court calendars and public opinion was becoming concerned about the number of those actions which were being tardily instituted. No federal statute of limitations was applicable to them at that time, so the State Legislature took action. The legislative history of the Act shows that the wage action features were the principal, if not the only, considerations urged upon the legislative committee. That limitation on wage actions was the motivating force and purpose of the statute seems free from doubt. This statute was designed and intended to be limited to actions for wages, damages and penalties arising out of the employer-employee...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fox Chemical Co. v. Amsoil, Inc.
...no prejudice. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the counterclaim as barred by the statute of limitations is denied. 1 Homewood Theatre v. Loew's, Inc., 101 F.Supp. 76 (D.Minn.1951); Allum v. Federal Cartridge Corp., 225 Minn. 438, 30 N.W.2d 705 (1948), Smith v. Cudahy Packing Co., 73 F.Supp. 14......
-
Columbia Pictures Corp. v. Charles Rubenstein, Inc.
...as raised and find no error in the court's interpretation of the statute as explained in the opinions in Homewood Theatre v. Loew's Inc., D.C.Minn. 1951, 101 F.Supp. 76 and in Charles Rubenstein Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Corp., D.C., 154 F.Supp. Appellants also complain of the court's findi......
-
Elmore Truck & Trailer Repair, Inc. v. Dep't of Emp't & Econ. Dev.
...(defining "actions" in the context of six-year statute-of-limitations as "judicial proceedings"); see also Homewood Theatre v. Loew's Inc., 101 F. Supp. 76, 77 (D. Minn. 1951) (noting that Minn. Stat. § 541.07(5) was designed and intended to be limited to actions for wages, damages andpenal......
-
Charles Rubenstein, Inc. v. Columbia Pictures Corp.
...or, in the alternative, that the limitation period be set at six years. In view of this Court's decision in Homewood Theatre v. Loew's, Inc., D.C., 1951, 101 F.Supp. 76, that the six-year statute of limitations is applicable to antitrust suits brought upon claims arising in Minnesota, it fo......