SE Overton Co. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD, ETC., 2273.

• Decision Date: 14 August 1953
• Docket Number: No. 2273.,2273.
• Citation: 115 F. Supp. 764
• Parties: S. E. OVERTON CO. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL et al.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Michigan

115 F. Supp. 764

S. E. OVERTON CO. v. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN & HELPERS OF AMERICA, AFL et al.

No. 2273.

United States District Court, W. D. Michigan, S. D.

August 14, 1953.

COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED

Williams & Williams, Paw Paw, Mich., Earl Waring Dunn, Grand Rapids, Mich., for plaintiff.

Morse & Kleiner and A. Robert Kleiner, Grand Rapids, Mich., for defendants Patrick E. Mackey and Local 406 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, A F L.

Victor E. Bucknell, Vicksburg, Mich., for Local 7 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, AFL.

Warner, Norcross & Judd and Harold S. Sawyer, Jr., Grand Rapids, Mich., for Associated Truck Lines, Inc.

STARR, District Judge.

On August 4, 1953, plaintiff company filed a complaint against the defendants in the circuit court of Kent County, Michigan, in which it alleged, among other things,

That it is a Michigan corporation engaged in the manufacture at its factory in South Haven, Michigan, of miscellaneous articles, including gun stocks for the United States government and other wooden products; that in the course of its business it purchases materials and supplies which are delivered to it in large part by common carriers, including the defendant carriers, and that it ships its products to customers by common carriers, including the carriers which are named as defendants.

The complaint alleges that about March 15, 1953, the defendants entered into an unlawful and illegal conspiracy to injure and destroy the plaintiff's business by preventing delivery of goods and merchandise to the plaintiff and by preventing the shipment of plaintiff's products to its customers; that is, it alleges that the common carriers named as defendants have refused to make deliveries to the plaintiff and have refused to accept deliveries from the plaintiff.

The complaint further alleges that the acts of the defendants constitute a violation of their duty to furnish transportation to the public, including the plaintiff, and that the defendants' acts constitute an unlawful combination and conspiracy against the plaintiff, in violation of the so-called monopoly statute of the State of Michigan, Comp.Laws Mich. 1948, § 445.761 et seq. The plaintiff further alleges that if the conduct of the defendant carriers is permitted to continue, it will cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff's business.

In its complaint the plaintiff asked for temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the defendants' alleged acts, and upon the filing of its complaint in the circuit court, that court, without notice or hearing, issued its temporary injunction enjoining and restraining the defendants from:

"(a) Refusing and/or engaging in or inducing the refusal to pick up for shipment at plaintiff's place of business goods consigned to plaintiff's customers wherever located or to deliver material and supplies consigned to plaintiff at its place of business.

"(b) Engaging in and/or inducing or encouraging the employees of any employer to refuse or engage in a concerted refusal to accept delivery of and deliver, transport, or otherwise handle any goods, articles, materials or commodities or to perform any services for the purpose of preventing the delivery of such goods, articles, materials or commodities to or from the plaintiff.

"(c) Inducing or encouraging defendant common motor carriers and their employees or other common motor carriers and employees of such other common motor carriers, to refuse or engage in a concerted refusal to deliver or to cause their employees not to deliver goods, articles, materials or commodities to plaintiff or to accept delivery of and deliver, transport or otherwise handle or to cause their employees not to accept delivery of and deliver, transport or otherwise handle goods, articles, materials or commodities of plaintiff.

"(d) Threatening, interfering with or coercing any persons supplying, selling, or transporting goods to plaintiff or making deliveries of goods to plaintiff or purchasing or transporting goods from plaintiff in order to force or induce them to cease such relationship with plaintiff; or in any way refusing or procuring the refusal by any other persons to accept delivery of and deliver, transport or otherwise handle plaintiff's goods."

It may be noted that in its complaint the plaintiff names as defendants the following: The International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL; Local 406 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL; Local 7 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America, AFL; Patrick E. Mackey and Lee Haney, business agents of Teamsters Union 406; and the common carriers, the Associated Truck Lines, Inc., a Michigan corporation; Holland Motor Express, Inc., a Michigan corporation. Cecil Wood Myers and Mildred L. Myers, d/b/a Wood & Myers Truck Line of South Haven, Michigan; Albert Van Zoeren, d/b/a Alvan Motor Freight of Holland, Michigan, and C. B. Christian of South Haven, Michigan.

On August 8th, in pursuance of 28 U.S.C.A. § 1446, two defendants, Patrick E. Mackey and Local 406 of the Teamsters Union filed petition for the removal of the case from the circuit court to this Federal district court. On August 10th the defendants filed a motion to vacate the State-court injunction, and an order was entered directing the plaintiff to show cause why the injunction should not be vacated. The defendants have also filed a motion to dismiss the complaint and suit. The plaintiff filed a motion, and later an amended motion, to remand the case back to the circuit court of Kent County, from which it was removed.

In this opinion the court will consider and determine all three motions; that is, the defendants' motion to vacate the circuit court's injunction, on which motion an order to show cause was issued, the plaintiff's motion and amended motion to remand, and the defendants' motion to dismiss.

The first and primary question to be determined is whether or not this court has jurisdiction of the case, in which the plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief. 28 U.S.C.A. § 1337 confers original jurisdiction on the district court "of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce". Under this section of the Code the jurisdiction of the district court does not rest on the question of the amount involved or diversity of citizenship. See Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38, 59 S.Ct. 648, 83 L.Ed. 1092; Weiss v. Los Angeles Broadcasting Co., Inc., 9 Cir., 163 F.2d 313.

The complaint does not expressly mention the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, commonly known as the Taft-Hartley Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 141 et seq., nor does it mention the Federal statutes relating to interstate commerce. However, it is fundamental that the court may properly take judicial notice of any Federal laws necessarily brought into play by the allegations of the complaint, although specific reference to such laws has been omitted. In Dynamic Mfrs., Inc., v. Local 614 of the Gen. Drivers, Warehousemen & Helpers of America, D.C., 103 F.Supp. 651, at page 652, the district court for the Eastern District of Michigan said:

"The fact that the plaintiff in his bill does not identify a Federal statute, does not prevent the court from recognizing the existence of a controversy clearly covered by a Federal statute. The court will take `judicial notice of any Federal laws necessarily brought into play by the allegations of the complaint; and it is immaterial that specific reference to such laws may be omitted in the pleading.'"

See also Southern Pacific Co. v. Stewart, 245 U.S. 359, 362, 38 S.Ct. 130, 62 L.Ed. 345; Downey v. Geary-Wright Tobacco Co., D.C., 39 F.Supp. 33; Pocahontas Terminal Corporation v. Portland Building & Construction Trade Council, D.C., 93 F.Supp. 217.

It is clear that the complaint alleges a controversy which affects interstate commerce. In fact, the plaintiff in its amended charge filed with the National Labor Relations Board on June 5, 1953,¹ against the Teamsters Unions which are defendants in the present case and the Upholsterers' International Union, alleged that said unions were engaged in unfair labor practices affecting interstate commerce.

Furthermore, the complaint filed by the National Labor Relations Board in Civil Action No. 2254 in this court, and the testimony taken in the trial of that case indicates that plaintiff Overton Company is engaged in interstate commerce and that its controversy with the defendant unions in the present case affects interstate commerce. See Slater v. Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, 10 Cir., 175 F.2d 608; Shore v. Building & Construction Trades Council of Pittsburgh, Pa., 3 Cir., 173 F.2d 678, 8 A.L.R.2d 731.

The complaint in the present case charges the defendant unions with conspiracy to injure and destroy the plaintiff's business by preventing delivery of goods and merchandise to the plaintiff and inducing the defendant common carriers to refuse to accept plaintiff's goods for delivery to its customers. These acts as alleged against the defendant unions and their agents and employees are clearly violations of § 8(b) (4) (A) of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 158(b) (4) (A), which provides in part:

"(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents— * * *

"(4) to engage in, or to induce or encourage the employees of any employer to engage in, * * * a concerted refusal in the course of their employment to use, manufacture, process, transport, or otherwise handle or work on any goods, articles, materials, or commodities or to perform any services, where an object thereof is: (A) forcing or requiring * * * any employer or other person to cease

...