Prepmore Apparel, Inc. v. AMALGAMATED CLOTH. WKRS. OF AM., No. 28703.

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (5th Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: PER CURIAM
• Citation: 431 F.2d 1004
• Decision Date: 01 October 1970
• Docket Number: No. 28703.
• Parties: PREPMORE APPAREL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee, v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellant.

431 F.2d 1004 (1970)

PREPMORE APPAREL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 28703.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

August 3, 1970.

Rehearing Denied and Rehearing Denied October 1, 1970.

431 F.2d 1005

Benj. L. Erdreich, Jerome A. Cooper, Cooper, Mitch & Crawford, Birmingham, Ala., Jacob Sheinkman, New York City, for defendant-appellant.

C. A. Powell, III, Robert McD. Smith, Birmingham, Ala., for plaintiff-appellee; Lange, Simpson, Robinson & Somerville, Birmingham, Ala., of counsel.

Before JOHN R. BROWN, Chief Judge, and BELL and INGRAHAM, Circuit Judges.

Rehearing Denied and Rehearing En Banc Denied October 1, 1970.

BELL, Circuit Judge:

This is an appeal by the union from a final judgment dismissing a counterclaim. Rule 54(b) F.R.Civ.P. Prepmore Apparel, Inc. brought a complaint against the union for damages arising out of a strike of Prepmore's plant in Russellville, Alabama. The complaint was premised on secondary activities on the part of the union, actionable under § 303 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 187, and for injury to Prepmore's business caused by strike violence, actionable under Alabama law. See Intern. Union, United Automobile, etc. Workers v. Russell, 1958, 356 U.S. 634, 78 S.Ct. 932, 2 L.Ed.2d 1030; San Diego Building Trades Council, etc. v. Garmon, 1959, 359 U.S. 236, 79 S.Ct. 773, 3 L.Ed.2d 775. Jurisdiction over the claim based on state law was said to be pendent. Cf. United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 1966, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218. The complaint is not involved in this appeal.

The union filed a counterclaim in two counts. The first count asserted a claim under § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.

431 F.2d 1006

C.A. § 1, seeking treble damages and injunctive relief. The second count was based on a claim for damages under state law for interference with the business of the union and sought compensatory and punitive damages

The district court dismissed both counts of the counterclaim under Rule 12(b) (6), F.R.Civ.P., and this appeal followed. We affirm.

Two issues are presented. One is whether a cause of action was stated in Count 1 upon which relief could be granted. The same question is presented in connection with Count 2.

The issues presented must be considered in the context of notice type pleading. As such, they are subjected to the rule that dismissal is proper only if it appears beyond doubt that the counter-claimant can prove no state of facts in support of its claim which would entitle it to relief. Conley v. Gibson, 1957, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46, 78 S.Ct. 99, 2 L.Ed.2d 80. As we said in Fowler v. Southern Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 5 Cir., 1965, 343 F.2d 150, a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b) (6),

"* * * serves the same function as a common law general demurrer, i. e., it is used to challenge the legal sufficiency of the complaint. The complaint is to be liberally construed, and a dismissal is not warranted unless it is clear that plaintiff would be entitled to no relief under any state of facts that might be proved in support of the complaint."

Construing the complaint in the most liberal fashion, the following facts appear. Prepmore claims damages arising out of a strike which did not begin until December 12, 1966. The union seeks relief for activities which ensued from a conspiracy entered into "on and before July of 1966." The union claims that Prepmore and two of its officers conspired with an out of state company, Blue Bell, Inc. and its president (added as defendants in the counterclaim), to injure the union and to destroy its operations in Russellville. This was done through a refusal to deal with the union concerning wage rates and working conditions. Blue Bell agreed to aid Prepmore in hindering and preventing the union from carrying on its lawful business of representing the employees at the Prepmore plant. We can assume for the purpose of notice pleading that a business purpose undergirded the alleged conspiracy.

Prepmore had its only place of business at Russellville. The union was certified as the representative of Prepmore's employees on July 26, 1966. Efforts to negotiate a collective bargaining agreement proved futile and the strike began in December 1966. It continued for more than six months thereafter. Ultimately, Prepmore terminated its operations at Russellville, according to the complaint, because of the strike. The complaint was filed in December 1967 and the counterclaim in March 1969. The union contends that the counterclaim was based on facts learned during discovery proceedings.

I.

We affirm the dismissal of the Sherman Act claim (Count I), on the a fortiori teachings of Apex Hosiery Company v. Leader, 1940, 310 U.S. 469, 60 S.Ct. 982, 84 L.Ed. 1311.¹ There the...