Kuhn v. Canteen Food Service

• Decision Date: 25 November 1944
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 44C425.
• Citation: 77 F. Supp. 585
• Parties: KUHN et al. v. CANTEEN FOOD SERVICE, Inc., et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois

77 F. Supp. 585

KUHN et al. v. CANTEEN FOOD SERVICE, Inc., et al.

Civil Action No. 44C425.

District Court, N. D. Illinois, E. D.

November 25, 1944.

Ernest H. Cohen and Herschel Kriger, both of Canton, Ohio, and Max A. Kopstein, of Chicago, Ill., for plaintiffs.

Miller, Gorham, Wescott & Adams, of Chicago, Ill., for defendants.

LA BUY, District Judge.

The plaintiffs as employees and former employees of the defendants instituted this suit to recover minimum wages and overtime compensation under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq., and also a common law claim for work and labor.

The Common Law Claim.

The complaint is framed on the theory of a class suit on behalf of about five thousand employees, with the aggregate amount of the claims of all the employees fixed at $2,500,000. Of this amount the complaint alleges that there is due from the defendants unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation in the sum of $1,000,000 and an additional amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), and that there is due to the class for whose use and benefit the suit is brought the sum of $500,000 for work and labor performed by the plaintiffs and the other employees for the defendant. The common law claim for $500,000 for work and labor performed by the 5,000 employees is not segregated among the said employees as to any particular amount, and, therefore, the only basis upon which the court can proceed is that each of the 5,000 employees is entitled to an equal share of the said $500,000. That would figure out at $100 due to each of the employees including each of the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs allege in paragraph II of their complaint that "Plaintiffs bring this action to recover from the defendants unpaid minimum wages and unpaid overtime compensation in the amount of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00), and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages, pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 (xxx), and to recover the additional sum of Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($500,000.00), which the defendants owe the plaintiffs and the other employees of the defendant corporation, on whose behalf and for whose benefit this action is brought, for work and labor performed by the plaintiffs and said other employees, for which the defendant corporation has failed and refused to pay them." The language thus quoted is plain and unqualified, so that the court must conclude that the plaintiffs claim is for $2,000,000 under the Fair Labor Standards Act and $500,000 for services for work and labor performed which is not claimed under the provisions of said Act.

The defendants have moved to strike from the complaint all reference to the common law claim described in the complaint. Inasmuch as the amount claimed to be due and owing to each of the 5,000 employees is in the sum of $100, the only theory on which the plaintiffs may sustain the requisite jurisdictional amount of $3000 in cases of diversity of citizenship is by aggregating the various amounts claimed to be due to the plaintiffs and other persons similarly situated. But if we assume that plaintiffs may properly maintain this suit as a class action, it is well settled that in a class action in which the character of the right involved is several, the amounts due to the various parties may not be aggregated for the purpose of conferring jurisdiction on the court, and that a general allegation in the complaint that there is more than $3000 involved is of no avail when the detailed facts show that that sum is not involved for any plaintiff. Lion Bonding & Surety Co. v. Karatz, 262 U.S. 77, 43 S.Ct. 480, 67 L.Ed. 871; Andrews v. Equitable Life Assur. Soc., 7 Cir., 124 F.2d 788; Woods v. Thompson, 7 Cir., 14 F.2d 951; Robbins v. Western Automobile Ins. Co., 7 Cir., 4 F.2d 249; Terrio v. Nielsen, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 77.

In the opinion of the court the complaint does set forth facts which confer jurisdiction upon the court with reference to any common law liability for work and labor done and performed for the defendants. Therefore, all reference to the common law liability of the defendants, exclusive of the claim of plaintiffs under the Fair Labor Standards Act should be stricken from the complaint.

The Claim Against the Individual Defendants.

The complaint alleges that the Canteen Food Service, Inc. is an Illinois corporation which maintained and operated industrial restaurants, cafeterias, canteens and other food dispensing services which were located at and operated in conjunction with certain named industrial and manufacturing plants, at each of which locations the defendant corporation was engaged in the purchasing, preparation, sale and distribution of food and food products solely and entirely for and to the employees of said industrial and manufacturing plant; that the defendant corporation operated said industrial restaurants, etc. solely and exclusively for the use and benefit of the employees of the several industrial and manufacturing plants above set forth and were not open or available to the patronage of the general public, but that the defendant corporation's employees, in the course of their employment, purchased food and food products, prepared and processed same, and sold and served said food and food products to the employees of said industrial and manufacturing plants, in restaurants, cafeterias and other places of service maintained by the defendant corporation or by said industrial and manufacturing plants, on the premises of and in said plants; that said industrial and manufacturing plants were engaged in the manufacture and production of goods (describing them) which were transported and used in interstate commerce.

The complaint further sets up the character of work done by the various employees of the defendant corporation; it is alleged that said employees are and were all covered by the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act; that the number of hours worked by the various employees was in excess of the maximum hours provided in said Act, and that plaintiffs were thus entitled to one and one-half times the regular rates at which they were employed; and that the defendant corporation did not pay the said employees at the minimum rate fixed in said Act and that said defendant corporation is liable for the difference between the amount actually paid and the minimum amount fixed by the said Act.

The plaintiffs further aver in their complaint "that the defendant corporation is indebted to all of the employees on whose behalf and for whose benefit this action is brought, in an aggregate amount in excess of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) for overtime compensation as aforesaid, and for the failure of the defendant corporation to pay to said employees the minimum rates of pay as aforesaid, and an additional equal amount as liquidated damages" (P.11 of complaint); and it is further averred that the individual defendants are partners doing business as Canteen Food Service (not inc.), and "that said partnership and the several partners thereof assumed and agreed to pay all of the debts and obligations of said corporation. Plaintiffs say that thereby said partnership and the several partners thereof became liable to the plaintiffs and the employees aforesaid, for the liabilities of said corporation to the plaintiffs and said employees, as hereinbefore set forth."

The claim of plaintiffs against the individual defendants as partners thus is based solely and exclusively upon the claimed assumption and agreement to pay all of the debts and obligations of the defendant corporation. This liability, if any, arises under a contract and not under the Act, and there are no other allegations in the complaint which set up any liability of the partnership under the Act. Under these facts the claim of the plaintiffs against the individual defendants can only be sustained if there are sufficient allegations of diversity of citizenship and jurisdictional amount of $3,000. The claim of the 5,000 employees upon whose behalf the suit is instituted is set at $2,500,000 or $500 for each plaintiff and each employee. The claims of the plaintiff and the other employees cannot be aggregated under the authorities above set forth.

It follows that there are not sufficient allegations in the complaint with reference to the amount of $3,000 which is imperative to confer jurisdiction on this court insofar as the individual partners are concerned. Therefore, all allegations in the complaint with reference to the individual defendants should be stricken and this cause dismissed as to said individual defendants.

The Claim Against the Corporation.

Plaintiffs allege that they and the class of employees which they claim to represent herein consists of purchasing agents, cooks, waitresses, counter-girls, bus-boys, cart-girls, dietitians, salad-makers, cashiers, salesladies, salesmen, helpers, laborers, clerks, office employees and in various other capacities, all of whom were engaged in the production of goods for interstate commerce within the meaning of said Fair Labor Standards Act.

There is no jurisdictional amount necessary in a suit arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act because under 28 U. S.C.A. § 41(8), the District Court is vested with original jurisdiction of "all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce." This court, therefore, has jurisdiction of this suit if the plaintiffs present a case arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act, irrespective of the amount involved or of diversity of citizenship.

Proceeding to an examination of plaintiffs' claim insofar as it is alleged to come within the scope of the Act, we find that the plaintiffs do not contend that they were "engaged in commerce" while employed by the defendant corporation, but their claim is that they were engaged in the "production of goods for commerce,"...