Satra Belarus, Inc. v. NLRB, 76-C-94.
Decision Date | 18 February 1976 |
Docket Number | No. 76-C-94.,76-C-94. |
Citation | 409 F. Supp. 271 |
Parties | SATRA BELARUS, INC., Plaintiff, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, and George Squillacote, Regional Director, Region 30, National Labor Relations Board, For and on Behalf of the National Labor Relations Board, Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Wisconsin |
Charne, Glassner, Tehan, Clancy & Taitelman by Robert B. Corris, Milwaukee, Wis., for plaintiff.
Mark Burstein and Joseph A. Szabo, Milwaukee, Wis., for defendants.
DECISION and ORDER
This matter is before the court on the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order. The action is brought pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B) of the Freedom of Information Act FOIA. The plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction compelling disclosure of certain statements in the possession of the N.L. R.B., prior to a hearing on a labor board complaint which charges the plaintiff with an unfair labor practice.
In my judgment, the plaintiff has failed to allege circumstances which confer jurisdiction to enjoin a pending labor board proceeding; in addition, the plaintiff has not yet exhausted its administrative remedies and has thus failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted under the judicial review provisions of the FOIA. Therefore, I conclude that the plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order should be denied and that the defendants' request that the action be dismissed should be granted.
The relevant facts are undisputed for purposes of the instant motion and appear from the complaint as follows: On November 3, 1975, the defendants issued a complaint against the plaintiff charging it with engaging in unfair labor practices. The hearing on these charges is currently set for tomorrow, February 19, 1976, at 10:00 A.M.
On January 13, 1976, the plaintiff made its request to the defendants pursuant to the FOIA for all written statements, signed or unsigned. The defendants denied this request two days later. On January 27, 1976, the plaintiff appealed the denial to the general counsel of the N.L.R.B. No decision on the appeal has as yet issued. On February 12, 1976, the plaintiff commenced the instant action.
The relief sought by the plaintiff is two-pronged. Ultimately, the plaintiff seeks a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to disclose the desired statements. In order to protect the usefulness of these statements in connection with the N.L.R.B. proceedings, the plaintiff seeks to have those proceedings stayed until the defendants turn over the materials in question or until there is a determination on the merits of the FOIA claim.
Both parties have supplied the court with authorities, directly on point, which support their respective positions. I find a ruling by Judge Doyle of the western district of Wisconsin to be particularly close on the facts to the instant case and to be persuasively reasoned.
In addressing the issue whether the court has jurisdiction to enjoin N.L. R.B. proceedings in a setting identical to the case at bar, Judge Doyle said at page 1000 of his opinion in Television Wisconsin, Inc. v. NLRB, civil no. 73-C-336, 410 F.Supp. 999 (W.D.Wis., decided February 3, 1976):
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Morpurgo v. Bd. of Higher Ed. in City of New York
...remedies before bringing suit, 5 U.S.C.A. § 552a(d), and failure to do so will result in dismissal. See Satra Belarus, Inc. v. NLRB, 409 F.Supp. 271 (E.D.Wis.1976). The present complaint fails to allege that administrative remedies have been exhausted. Plaintiff, in opposition to the federa......
-
Pacheco v. Federal Bureau of Investigation
...Inc. v. Secretary of U. S. Air Force, supra. F. T. C. v. Stanley H. Kaplan, 433 F.Supp. 989 (D.C.Mass.1977); Satra Belarus, Inc. v. NLRB, 409 F.Supp. 271 (D.C.Wis.1976). Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion for partial summary judgment as to this item is totally devoid of merit. The request is D......
-
Jenks v. United States Marshals Service, C-3-81-174.
...that it requires a requester to present proof that he has exhausted his administrative remedies. See also, Satra Belarus, Inc. v. NLRB, 409 F.Supp. 271, 272-73 (E.D.Wis. 1976). Applying that proposition to this case, the Court is of the opinion that, by relying on section 552(a)(6)(C), plai......
-
Hedley v. U.S., 78-3101
...judicial review. Morpugo v. Board of Higher Education of New York, 423 F.Supp. 704, 714 n.26 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Satra Belarus, Inc. v. NLRB, 409 F.Supp. 271, 272-73 (E.D.Wisc.1976). Not only have the Hedleys failed to allege exhaustion, but the record here shows that the IRS did not receive th......