Shultz v. Lion Oil Co.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1952 |
| Docket Number | Civ. No. 566. |
| Citation | 106 F. Supp. 119 |
| Parties | SHULTZ v. LION OIL CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Arkansas |
Mattie Lou Shultz, pro se.
Davis & Allen, El Dorado, Ark., for defendant.
The defendant has moved for summary judgment on the ground that the right of plaintiff, if any, to recover for the alleged injury is limited solely and exclusively to the rights afforded by the Workmen's Compensation Law of Arkansas in effect at the time of the alleged injury, and that because the rights of the plaintiff are so limited, this Court has no jurisdiction to grant plaintiff the relief which she is seeking.
In the interest of clarity, the proceedings heretofore had herein should be briefly reviewed.
The plaintiff filed her complaint in the Circuit Court (Second Division) of Union County, Arkansas. The cause was removed to this Court by the defendant on the grounds of diversity of citizenship and the amount involved. After the case was removed defendant filed a motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to comply with Rule 8(a) (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.
On May 21, the Court sustained the motion to dismiss without prejudice to the right of the plaintiff to serve and file an amended complaint "simply and concisely constructed, embodying a short and plain statement of plaintiff's claim as contemplated by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure."
On June 2, the plaintiff filed her amended complaint, and on June 27, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint on the ground that it did not comply with Rule 8(a) (e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. On July 10, 1952, the Court overruled the motion of defendant to dismiss, but struck from the amended complaint certain allegations as being immaterial, redundant and irrelevant. At the time this order was entered the Court stated:
"Giving to the amended complaint the most liberal construction, the court is of the opinion that a claim against the defendant is sufficiently stated in paragraph one of the complaint and the first sentence of paragraph two, and therefore, the motion to dismiss should be overruled."
The plaintiff has not appeared by any attorney and is apparently trying to conduct this litigation with the aid of some undisclosed person who has no practical knowledge of procedure and very little, if any, of substantive law.
After overruling the motion to dismiss, the Court as above stated struck certain portions of the complaint and at that time stated:
Following the entry of the order overruling the motion to dismiss the amended complaint, the defendant filed and served the motion for summary judgment, and filed in support thereof a memorandum of authorities as required by Local Rule 8, but the plaintiff has made no response thereto. However, because of the fact that the plaintiff is undertaking to represent herself, the Court has given careful consideration to the undisputed facts and the applicable law before proceeding to dispose of the motion for summary judgment.
The facts reflected by the record are not in dispute. The plaintiff is seeking to recover of defendant damages for an alleged injury sustained by plaintiff while employed by defendant during the latter months of 1948. At the time of the alleged injury plaintiff was employed by defendant and the injury arose as a result of and during the course of the employment of plaintiff by defendant.
The amended complaint does not disclose the exact time of the injury except that it occurred "during the latter months of 1948."
The defendant was, until November 2, 1948, in its own name and behalf, qualified as a self-insurer under Act No. 319 of the Acts of Arkansas for the year 1939, as amended, Sections 81-1301 to 81-1349, both inclusive, Arkansas Statutes 1947, Annotated, which act was the Arkansas Workmen's Compensation Law in effect until November 2, 1948. At that time Initiated Act No. 4 of the Acts of Arkansas for the year 1948 became effective. The latter Act is known as the Workmen's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Haddock Engineers v. Swope
...Act are Johansen v. United States, 343 U.S. 427, 72 S.Ct. 849, 96 L.Ed. 1051; Taylor v. Hubbell, 9 Cir., 188 F.2d 106; Shultz v. Lion Oil Co., D.C., 106 F.Supp. 119; Peterson v. Moran, 111 Cal.App.2d 766, 245 P.2d 540; Latimer v. Western Machine Exchange, 40 Wash.2d 155, 241 P.2d In Royal I......
-
Armistead v. C & M Transport, Inc., 94-1525
...Mississippi workers' compensation law); Trapp v. Goetz, 373 F.2d 380 (10th Cir.1966) (examining state pension law); Shultz v. Lion Oil Co., 106 F.Supp. 119 (D.Ark.1952) (examining Arkansas workers' compensation law), appeal dismissed, 202 F.2d 752 (8th Moreover, the limited supplementary an......
-
Tinsley v. Massman Const. Co.
...Contractor, Inc., 204 Ark. 283, 162 S.W.2d 477, 479; Hagger v. Wortz Biscuit Co., 210 Ark. 318, 196 S.W.2d 1, 4; Shultz v. Lion Oil Co., D.C.Ark., 106 F.Supp. 119, 120[1, 2]. This is so whether Massman be an independent contractor or a viceprincipal, agent or servant of Railroad, as the rel......
-
EAGLE STAR INSURANCE COMPANY v. Deal
...This court has no jurisdiction to determine whether or not the decedents have a proper workmen's compensation claim. Shultz v. Lion Oil Co. (W.D.Ark.1952) 106 F.Supp. 119. The use of the aircraft under the provision "Pleasure and Business" permitted the use to which Dr. Deal was utilizing t......