Prudential Insurance Co. v. INSURANCE AGENTS'INT. U

• Decision Date: 22 January 1959
• Parties: PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION (AFL-CIO) and Local 19 of Insurance Agents' International Union (AFL-CIO), Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York

169 F. Supp. 534

PRUDENTIAL INSURANCE COMPANY OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. INSURANCE AGENTS' INTERNATIONAL UNION (AFL-CIO) and Local 19 of Insurance Agents' International Union (AFL-CIO), Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

January 22, 1959.

Silver, Bernstein, Seawell & Kaplan, New York City, for plaintiff.

Irwin E. Schlussel, Pofcher, Schlussel & Katcher, New York City, for defendants.

Isaac N. Groner, Washington, D. C., of counsel.

DIMOCK, District Judge.

This is a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The action is one by an employer against an international union and a local of that union for a declaratory judgment that certain acts alleged in the complaint constitute material breaches of a collective bargaining agreement between the employer and the international.

Jurisdiction is invoked under the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947, Section 301(a), 29 U.S.C. § 185(a), and the declaratory judgment provisions of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201, 2202.

The only point worthy of discussion raised by defendants is that the case is not a proper one for declaratory relief.

It is said that the complaint is defective because it is not alleged that there is any dispute as to whether the acts alleged constitute material breaches of the contract. It is true that there is no such allegation in the complaint. Under the law in this circuit, however, it is not necessary that a complaint allege all of the ultimate facts which the plaintiff would have to prove in order to succeed. A complaint may be dismissed only if it fails to disclose adequate information as to the basis of the claim for relief or if it appears to a certainty that plaintiff is entitled to no relief under any state of facts which could be proved in support of the claim. Rosen v. Texas Company, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 161 F. Supp. 55, 57. The basis of plaintiff's claim is adequately disclosed. The omission of the allegation could be supplied by evidence. All that plaintiff would have to do to supply the alleged omission would be to introduce evidence that defendants dispute the charge that the alleged acts constitute breaches of the contract. The omission does not render the complaint defective.

Defendants go on to say that the court should dismiss the complaint "because the declaration demanded cannot resolve all possible differences between the parties and can serve no useful purpose."

It is a good deal to ask of any lawsuit that it must resolve all possible differences between the parties. Without considering whether other differences may exist which will not be resolved by a declaration that the enumerated acts constitute material...