Rothstein v. Manuti
Decision Date | 13 April 1964 |
Citation | 235 F. Supp. 48 |
Parties | Murray ROTHSTEIN, Al Gurton, John Glasel, Rudy Guarnaccia, Charles McCarty and Jack Daney, individually and on behalf of and for the benefit of Associated Musicians of Greater New York, Local 802, American Federation of Musicians, Plaintiffs, v. Al MANUTI, Al Knopf, Max L. Arons and Hy Jaffe, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Burton H. Hall, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Ashe & Rifkin, New York City, for defendants; David I. Ashe, Eugene Victor, New York City, of counsel.
The plaintiffs, members of Local 802, Associated Musicians of Greater New York, seek a preliminary injunction directing the four named defendants to "cause to be held a continuation meeting for the purpose of continuing and completing the business and agenda of the February 1964 bylaw meeting of Local 802, directing also that the said meeting be supervised by a person and in a manner chosen by this Court for the purpose of protecting Local 802 and its members from further deprivation of democratic rights at the continuation meeting, and restraining and enjoining defendants from continuing to commit at meetings of Local 802, during the pendency of this action, the violations indicated in the aforesaid complaint, petition and affidavits, * * *."
This action, brought by the plaintiffs in their own behalf and for the entire membership of Local 802, continues in somewhat altered form a controversy within Local 802 first introduced into the courts in Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F. Supp. 39 (S.D.N.Y.1963). The present complaint, framed in two causes of action, alleges violations of Sections 101 (a) (1) and 501 of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 522, 539, 29 U.S.C. §§ 411, 501 (hereinafter LMRDA), by the conduct of the four defendants at or concerning two meetings of Local 802 held respectively on February 17 and March 16, 1964. The defendants, although sued as individuals, are respectively President, Vice-President, Secretary and Treasurer of Local 802. Jurisdiction is premised on 29 U.S.C. §§ 412, 501(b).
The plaintiffs as members of Local 802 are a faction of the Union at loggerheads with the defendants, the incumbent administration of the Local. The dispute apparently centers about the proper position in the Union of full-time professional musicians, such as the plaintiffs, vis-a-vis the part-time musicians who make up the greater majority of the membership. At the September 9, 1963 By-Law meeting the membership present adopted, under plaintiffs' sponsorship and over the opposition of the Local's Executive Board, three significant By-Law changes. The first abolished a 1½% work tax1 on the earnings of the membership and substituted therefor an increase in the per capita dues from $24 to $80, effective January 1, 1964. The second change altered the By-Laws to replace the annual September By-Law meeting with three By-Law meetings to be held respectively in February, May and October of each year. The third lowered the quorum requirement for meetings from 500 to 250. A subsequent referendum of the membership ordered by the Executive Board reduced the per capita dues to their former level and reinstated the 1½% work tax. The referendum and its conduct were the subject of an action in this court, Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 39 (S.D. N.Y.1963), and in the New York Supreme Court, New York County, under the same caption, 49 CCH Lab.Cas. ¶ 51,024 (1964). This action, brought independently of the former action by different counsel, concerns conduct at the February 17, 1964 By-Law meeting, the first meeting of Local 802 since the September 1963 meeting at which a quorum was present and the monthly membership meeting held March 16, 1964.
The conduct complained of in the complaint is the alleged violations of Robert's Rules of Order which, by Article VII, Section 12 of the Union's By-Laws, are made applicable to the parliamentary procedure of the Local. Specifically, the charges against the defendant Manuti, President of Local 802, center about his actions while chairing the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Sperry and Hutchinson Company v. FTC
...of a temporary injunction is that plaintiff demonstrate "at least a probability of success at the plenary hearing," Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y.1964), it is appropriate here to examine the merits of the Sperry contends in substance that it has suffered and will suffer i......
-
Maceira v. Pagan
...F.Supp. 479 (S.D.N.Y., 1977); Broomer v. Schultz, 239 F.Supp. 699 (D.C.Pa., 1965), aff. 356 F.2d 984 (C.A.3, 1966); Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y., 1964); Vars v. Int'l. Bro. of Boilermakers, etc., 204 F.Supp. 241 (D.Conn., Without the need for further detailed analysis, it i......
-
Guarnaccia v. Kenin
...have been the subject of prior litigation in this Court. See, e. g., Gurton v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 50 (S.D.N.Y. May 8, 1964); Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 48 (April 13, 1964 Per. Levet, J.); Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 39 ¶ 18,650 (S.D.N.Y.1963), and in the New York Supreme Court, ......
-
ASS'N OF CONTRACTING PLUMBERS OF NYC v. Local no. 2, 86 Civ. 9005(MEL)
...bearing in mind "the impracticability of this court ... sitting as Grand Parliamentarian of the union's meetings," Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F.Supp. 48, 50 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), as well as the principle of non-interference with intra-union affairs discussed above. See also Bartosh v. Letter Carri......
-
Betwixt 'n between PIL and PLP: the public interest lawyer and decisions in nonprofits.
...As Commonwealth ex rel. Fox v. Chase, 403 Pa. 117, 122 (1961), proclaimed, what matters is a clear intent and Rothstein v. Manuti, 235 F. Supp. 48 (S.D.N.Y. 1964), further clarified that there will be no appeals to a judicial "Grand Parliamentarian." However, it is always best to follow som......