Mitchell v. Richey
| Decision Date | 29 August 1958 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 2332. |
| Citation | 164 F. Supp. 419 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of South Carolina |
| Parties | James P. MITCHELL, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Plaintiff, v. Luther M. RICHEY, Jr., Defendant. |
Beverley R. Worrell, Regional Atty., U. S. Dept. of Labor, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff.
This action was brought by the plaintiff James P. Mitchell, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, on May 9, 1958, to recover from the defendant unpaid minimum wages and overtime compensation alleged to be due eleven named employees of the defendant under the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, hereinafter referred to as the Act.
The question now before me in the above case is plaintiff's motion to dismiss defendant's counterclaim.
Jurisdiction of this action is conferred by Section 16(c) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(c), and by 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337. Under Section 16(c) of the Act, when a written request is filed by an employee with the Secretary of Labor, claiming unpaid minimum wages or overtime compensation due under the Act and requesting the Secretary to institute suit to recover the amount due to the employee, the Secretary may bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction to recover the amount of the claim.
The counterclaim alleges that Herman W. Easton and Paul Fortson, two of the eleven employees alleged in the complaint to be due unpaid wages under the Act, are indebted to the defendant in the respective amounts of $500 and $300, and prays judgment against Herman W. Easton and Paul Fortson in said amounts.
Plaintiff contends that the court lacks jurisdiction over defendant's counterclaim on three grounds: (1) the United States is the real party plaintiff in this action, and it has not given its consent to any counterclaim or set-off in actions brought under Section 16(c); (2) the counterclaim is a permissive counterclaim lacking independent grounds of federal jurisdiction; and (3) the counterclaim does not state a claim against an "opposing party" as required by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
The plaintiff brought this action in his official capacity as a federal official for the benefit of the United States and under the express provisions of a statute; it is therefore a suit by the United States. Inasmuch as the counterclaim seeks to reduce the amount claimed by the plaintiff, it is brought against the plaintiff, i. e. the United States.
No suit, counterclaim or set-off may be brought against the United States without specific statutory consent. United States v. Shaw, 1940, 309 U.S. 495, 500, 501, 60 S.Ct. 659, 84 L.Ed. 888; United States v. United States Fidelity and Guaranty Co., 1940, 309 U.S. 506, 60 S.Ct. 653, 84 L.Ed. 894; Nassau Smelting & Refining Works v. United States, 1924, 266 U.S. 101, 45 S.Ct. 25, 69 L.Ed. 190; State of Kansas v. United States, 1907, 204 U.S. 331, 27 S.Ct. 388, 51 L.Ed. 510.
For a counterclaim or set-off to be allowed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mitchell v. Stewart Brothers Construction Company
...control over the suit; and he has no right against a defendant by virtue of a favorable verdict. In the recent case of Mitchell v. Richey, D.C.S.C.1958, 164 F.Supp. 419, an employer tried to counterclaim against certain of the employees in a suit brought by the Secretary under Section 216(c......
-
Wirtz v. C & P SHOE CORPORATION
...have held that in this type suit the employer cannot counterclaim for amounts due by the employee to the employer, Mitchell v. Richey, 164 F. Supp. 419 (D.C.S.C.1958); Mitchell v. Floyd Pappin & Son, Inc., 122 F. Supp. 755 (D.C.Mont.1954); and that the employee's name does not have to be ad......
-
NLRB v. Mooney Aircraft, Inc.
...Stewart Bros. Constr. Co., D.Neb.1960, 184 F. Supp. 886, 898. The employer may not counterclaim against the Secretary. Mitchell v. Richey, W.D.S.C.1958, 164 F. Supp. 419; Mitchell v. Floyd Pappin & Son, Inc., D.Mont.1954, 122 F.Supp. 755, Of course the Company in this case may seek any reme......
-
United States v. Glens Falls Ins. Co.
...rule has been extended to counterclaims. See U. S. v. Drinkwater, 434 F.Supp. 457 (D.C.Va.1977). See also Mitchell v. Richey, 164 F.Supp. 419 (W.D.S.C. 1958). ...