Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 13049.
| Decision Date | 15 April 1952 |
| Docket Number | No. 13049.,13049. |
| Parties | PRICKETT et al. v. CONSOLIDATED LIQUIDATING CORP. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Mohr & Borstein, Perry Bertram, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellants.
Alfred Wright and Harold F. Collins, Los Angeles, Cal., for appellee.
Before MATHEWS, HEALY and ORR, Circuit Judges.
On January 16, 1947, an action was brought against appellee, Consolidated Liquidating Corporation, to enforce causes of action, hereafter called claims, for unpaid overtime compensation and liquidated damages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The claims sought to be enforced were those of appellants, Glenn O. Prickett, H. F. Winans, S. E. Whitney, Luther M. Walters, Samuel D. Tinker, Frank Hemminger, Oliver H. Raftery, Fred M. Koehler, Charles R. Cobb and Charles E. Smith-Sanford. Prickett, Winans and Whitney brought the action "on behalf of themselves and all other employees similarly situated." Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford claimed to be "employees similarly situated."
On April 11, 1947, appellee moved for a bill of particulars.1 That motion was granted on May 12, 1947. The Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. § 251 et seq., was enacted on May 14, 1947. A bill of particulars was filed on June 5, 1947. An answer was filed on June 16, 1947. An amended complaint was filed on April 6, 1949. In May, 1949, appellee made two motions to dismiss. The first was, in effect, a motion to dismiss the action in its entirety. The second was, in effect, a motion to dismiss the action as to Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford. On June 22, 1949, Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford took an appeal which purported to be from a judgment entered on May 23, 1949. There was no such judgment. The appeal taken on June 22, 1949, was therefore dismissed.2
On September 8, 1949, an order was entered which, in effect, denied the motion to dismiss the action in its entirety and granted the motion to dismiss the action as to Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford, but did not dismiss the action as to them or any of them. Thereupon, on September 8, 1949, appellants took an appeal which purported to be from a portion of the order of September 8, 1949, which dismissed the claims of Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford. The order of September 8, 1949, did not contain any such portion. The appeal taken on September 8, 1949, was therefore dismissed.3
Thereafter, upon an express determination that there was no just reason for delay and upon an express direction for the entry of judgment,4 a judgment was entered which, in effect, dismissed the action as to Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford. From the judgment so entered this appeal is prosecuted.
The ground of the motion to dismiss the action as to Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford was that, as to them, the action was barred by the statute of limitations prescribed in § 6(b) of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 255(b).5 That section refers to actions commenced on or after May 14, 1947, to enforce claims (causes of action) which accrued prior to May 14, 1947. However, appellee contends that the statute of limitations provided therein applied to Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford. This contention is based on § 8 of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 257, which provides:
This was a collective or representative action commenced prior to May 14, 1947, to enforce claims, including those of Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford, all of which accrued prior to May 14, 1947. Although not specifically named in the original complaint as parties plaintiff to the action, Walters, Tinker, Hemminger, Raftery, Koehler, Cobb and Smith-Sanford were so named in the bill of particulars long before the expiration of 120 days after May 14, 1947. Hence the statute of limitations prescribed in § 6(b) of the Portal-to-Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 255(b), did not apply to them.
The statute...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rieser v. Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company
...603, certiorari denied 339 U.S. 920, 70 S.Ct. 622, 94 L.Ed. 1344; Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 9 Cir., 180 F.2d 8; Id., 9 Cir., 196 F.2d 67. The case of Phelan v. Middle States Oil Corp., 2 Cir., 203 F.2d 836, is also to be added to this group, since there the court, notwiths......
-
Donovan v. Crisostomo
...to § 216(c), have required that the employee be named in the complaint or a pleading equivalent to it. See Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 196 F.2d 67 (9th Cir. 1952) (bill of particulars); Ciemnoczolowski v. Q. O. Ordinance Corp., 119 F.Supp. 793 (D.Neb.1954), aff'd, 233 F.2d 9......
-
E.E.O.C. v. Hernando Bank, Inc.
...to it. E.g. Donovan v. Crisostomo, 689 F.2d 869 (9th Cir.1982) (Wisdom, J., sitting by designation), citing Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 196 F.2d 67 (9th Cir.1952); Ciemnoczolowski v. Q.O. Ordinance Corp., 119 F.Supp. 793 (D.Neb.1954), affirmed, 233 F.2d 902 (8th Cir.), cert.......
-
Snowden v. Baltimore Gas & Elec. Co.
...a. See Picking v. State Finance Co., supra, 257 Md. at 558, 263 A.2d at 574; Prickett v. Consolidated Liquidating Corp., 180 F.2d 8, 9, 196 F.2d 67, 68 (9 Cir.1950, 1952); 6 J. Moore, W. Taggart & J. Wicker, Moore's Federal Practice §§ 54.33, 54.34 (2d ed. On the other hand, this Court has ......