Maurer v. International Typographical Union

Decision Date11 April 1956
Docket NumberCiv. A. No. 20279.
Citation139 F. Supp. 337
PartiesAlfred E. MAURER, Pasquale Cinacio, Stephen Nagurny, Edward Bell, John Gallagher, Myer Portney, Eugene Graham v. INTERNATIONAL TYPOGRAPHICAL UNION, Philadelphia Typographical Union No. 2, Sinclair L. Muir, James H. Kelley.
CourtU.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

McBride, vonMoschzisker & Bradley, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

H. P. Abramson, Maurice Abrams, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.

LORD, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiffs' Motion to Remand.

Plaintiffs are all members of Typographical Union No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as "Union No. 2"), one of the defendants herein. Union No. 2 is chartered by and is an affiliate of International Typographical Union (hereinafter referred to as "I. T. U.") which is also a defendant. Sinclair L. Muir and James H. Kelley, the other defendants, are President and Secretary-Treasurer, respectively, of Union No. 2.

I.T.U. and Union No. 2 are both unincorporated associations. I.T.U. has its principal office in Indianapolis, Indiana, while Union No. 2 has its principal office in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The two named officers of Union No. 2 are citizens and residents of Pennsylvania. All of the named plaintiffs are citizens and residents of Pennsylvania except Maurer who is a citizen and resident of New Jersey.

Plaintiffs sought an injunction in the state court against both unions alleging certain dues and assessments were being demanded of them in violation of the constitution and by-laws of I.T.U. and Union No. 2. The plaintiffs were successful in their suit and an injunction issued prohibiting defendants from pressing such demands respecting dues and assessments and further from interfering in any manner with plaintiffs' membership in Union No. 2 and such rights and privileges as were incident thereto.

Subsequently, I.T.U. removed the case from the state court. Following this removal, I.T.U. filed a special appearance and a motion to quash service as to it and to dismiss the complaint. The plaintiffs then filed the motion under consideration to remand to the state court.

There are several issues raised by the Motion to Remand. However, the first and foremost issue to be considered is "does this case come within the purview of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(c)"? Determination of this issue in favor of plaintiffs causes all other issues to become moot and makes it unnecessary to consider them.

As stated previously, the validity of the principle of removability hinges upon the theory embraced in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(c). This section lays down the rule that only where there exists "a separate and independent claim or cause of action" can a federal court acquire jurisdiction by removal procedures. The section under consideration reads thusly:

"§ 1441. Actions removable generally
* * * * * *
"(c) Whenever a separate and independent claim or cause of action, which would be removable if sued upon alone, is joined with one or more otherwise nonremovable claims or causes of action, the entire case may be removed and the district court may determine all issues therein, or, in its discretion, may remand all matters not otherwise within its original jurisdiction."

This section clearly allows the removal of a separate cause of action but not a separable controversy unless the controversy constitutes a separate and independent claim or cause of action within the original jurisdiction of the United States District Courts.

In American Fire & Casualty Co. v. Finn, 1951, 341 U.S. 6, at page 9, 71 S. Ct. 534, at page 538, 95 L.Ed. 702, the Supreme Court construed 28 U.S.C.A. § 1441(c), stating inter alia:

"One purpose of Congress in adopting the `separate and independent claim or cause of action' test for removability by § 1441(c) of the 1948 revision in lieu of the provision for removal of 28 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) § 71, was by simplification to avoid the difficulties experienced in determining the meaning of that provision. (See footnote 1 of Finn case, supra.) Another and important purpose was to limit removal from state courts. (See footnote 2 of Finn case, supra.)
* * * * * *
"A separable controversy is no longer an adequate ground for removal unless it also constitutes a separate and independent claim or cause of action. * * *" See also Mayflower Industries v. Thor Corporation, 3 Cir., 1950, 184 F.2d 537.

Predicated upon this authority, even if plaintiffs have a "separable controversy" with I.T.U., it would not be justification for removal. Under the Statute and the Finn case, supra, there must be a "separate and independent claim or cause of action" existing to warrant removal.

Upon what premises does I.T. U. seek to show that a separate and independent claim has been laid against it? The validity of I.T.U.'s assertion must be found in...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • State of New Jersey v. Moriarity
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey
    • March 31, 1967
    ...of America, 93 F. Supp. 296 (D.N.J., 1950); Winsor v. United Air Lines, 159 F.Supp. 856 (D. Del.1958); Maurer v. International Typographical Union, 139 F.Supp. 337 (E.D.Pa., 1956); Walls v. City of New York, 156 F.Supp. 3 (D.C.1957); Breyman v. Pennsylvania, O. & D. R. Co., 38 F.2d 209 (6th......
  • Lancer Industries, Inc. v. American Insurance Company
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Western District of Louisiana
    • September 25, 1961
    ...Federal and in favor of State Court jurisdiction. Greenshields v. Warren Petroleum Corp., supra, Maurer v. International Typographical Union et al., D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 139 F. Supp. 337; Harrisville Co. v. Home Insurance Co. et al., D.C.S.D.N.Y. 1954, 129 F.Supp. 300; American Fire & Casualty ......
  • West Virginia State Bar v. Bostic, Civ. A. No. 2951.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Southern District of West Virginia
    • June 14, 1972
    ...uncertain proposition and, in such instances, the federal court should remand the case to the state court. Maurer v. International Typographical Union, 139 F. Supp. 337 (D.C.Pa.1956). But, notwithstanding the foregoing, the removal must fail for two other reasons: (a) for lack of requisite ......
  • Lorraine Motors, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • September 16, 1958
    ...Ins. Co., D.C. D.S.D.1958, 157 F.Supp. 606; Walls v. City of New York, D.C.E.D.N.Y.1957, 156 F.Supp. 3; Maurer v. International Typographical Union, D.C.E.D.Pa.1956, 139 F.Supp. 337; Rodriguez v. Union Oil Co. of Cal., D.C.S.D.Cal.1954, 121 F. Supp. 824; Associated Tel. Co. v. Communication......
  • 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