Lengel v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Co.

Decision Date15 April 1940
Docket NumberNo. 729.,729.
Citation32 F. Supp. 567
PartiesLENGEL et al. v. NEWARK NEWSDEALERS SUPPLY CO.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

Isserman, Isserman & Kapelsohn, of Newark, N. J., for plaintiff.

Herman Marx, of Newark, N. J., for Wage and Hour Division.

Braelow & Tepper, of Newark, N. J., for defendant.

WALKER, District Judge.

The defendant moves to dismiss this action contending the court lacks jurisdiction, because the amount actually in controversy is less than $3,000, exclusive of interest and costs; because the three employees of the defendant who designated John D. Lengel as their agent and representative to initiate and maintain this action for and on their behalf, do not individually have a claim amounting to at least $3,000, and the individual claims cannot be added together in order to total the jurisdictional amount required by law, and because, said claims cannot be joined together, inasmuch as they do not arise out of the same transaction, occurrences, or series of transactions or occurrences, and a common question of law or fact is not involved.

The action is alleged to arise under the provisions of Sections 6 and 7 of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 206, 207; the authorization to John D. Lengel, hereinabove referred to, being predicated upon section 16(b) thereof, 29 U.S. C.A. § 216(b).

The plaintiff in support of jurisdiction contends that he asserts rights arising under a law regulating commerce, and if this is so, subsection (8) of Section 41 of U.S. C. Title 28, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8), gives to the United States District Court original jurisdiction, regardless of the amount in controversy. Davis v. Age-Herald Publishing Co., 5 Cir., 293 F. 591; Turner, Dennis & Lowry Lumber Co. v. Chicago, M. & St. P. R. Co., 271 U.S. 259, 46 S.Ct. 530, 70 L. Ed. 934; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092.

The complaint herein alleges that the defendant is engaged in the sale and distribution of daily newspapers, periodicals and other printed matter obtained and purchased within and outside the State of New Jersey, and sold and distributed by the defendant from the State of New Jersey to points within and outside the State of New Jersey, and that the defendant failed to pay to the three employees in question, who were employed in its garage as mechanics, in the maintenance and repair of automobile trucks used in the business within and outside the State of New Jersey, minimum wages and overtime compensation in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
8 cases
  • Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
    • April 22, 1942
    ...___; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 663; Fishman v. Marcouse, D. C., 32 F.Supp. 460; Lengel v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Company, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 567; Rogers v. Glazer, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 990; Townsend v. Boston & M. R. R., D.C., 35 F.Supp. 938; Divine v. Levy, D.C.,......
  • Berger v. Clouser
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania
    • December 31, 1940
    ...Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8), regardless of the amount involved. Fishman v. Marcouse, D.C., 32 F.Supp. 460; Lengel et al. v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Co., D.C., 32 F.Supp. 567; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., Inc., D.C., 31 F. Supp. 663. VI. Defendants contend that "the Court lacks jur......
  • Stucker v. Roselle, 228.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Kentucky
    • February 25, 1941
    ...Decalcominia Co., Inc., D.C.N.D.Tex., 31 F.Supp. 663; Fishman v. Marcouse, D.C.E.D.Pa., 32 F. Supp. 460; Lengel v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Co., D.C.N.J., 32 F.Supp. 567; Rogers v. Glazer, D.C.W.D.Mo., 32 F.Supp. 990; Townsend v. Boston & Maine R. R., D.C.Mass., 35 F.Supp. 938. On the othe......
  • Fleming v. Wood-Fruitticher Grocery Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama
    • April 8, 1941
    ...under any law regulating commerce." Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., D.C.Tex. 1940, 31 F. Supp. 663; Lengel v. Newark Newsdealers Supply Co., D.C.N.J. 1940, 32 F.Supp. 567. With the opinion in Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, D.C.Tenn.1940, 32 F.Supp. 19, which holds to the contrary,......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT