Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., Civil Action No. 1036.
Decision Date | 14 February 1944 |
Docket Number | Civil Action No. 1036. |
Citation | 54 F. Supp. 29 |
Parties | SONNESYN v. FEDERAL CARTRIDGE CO. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
Edward A. Danforth (of Fowler, Youngquist, Furber, Taney & Johnson), of Minneapolis, Minn., for plaintiff.
George C. Stiles and Henry F. Simons, both of Minneapolis, Minn., and Bert E. Church, Major, J.A.G.D., Litigation Officer, Seventh Service Command, of Kansas City, Mo., for defendant.
Plaintiff's motion to remand came on for hearing on December 13, 1943. Arguments were had, and the court by order entered on said date overruled the motion. This memorandum is filed in explanation of such action.
This suit, originally filed in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minnesota, Fourth Judicial District, seeks recovery under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 of the sum of $1,451.07 alleged overtime compensation, the further sum of $1,451.07 as liquidated damages, a reasonable attorney's fee, and costs of the action.
Removal of this proceeding was taken to this court upon the grounds, that the action is a suit arising under a law regulating commerce, to-wit: the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U.S.C. A. §§ 201 to 219; that the suit is one over which the District Courts of the United States are given original jurisdiction, regardless of amount involved, as an action arising under a law regulating commerce, 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8). Further, that since the plaintiff is suing for $2,902.14, plus a reasonable attorney's fee, which it is believed would be not less than $100, the actual amount involved, exclusive of interest and costs, is in excess of $3,000.
Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 71, enumerates the types of cases removable from state courts to the United States district courts. Such section provides:
It will be noted from the above quotation that for a case to be removable to the United States district court, it is necessary only that the following two elements be present:
1. That said suit arises under the laws of the United States (or that the defendant or defendants be nonresidents of the State); and
2. That said suit be one of which the United States district courts are given original jurisdiction.
Title 28 U.S.C.A. § 41, provides in part:
In determining the amount in controversy for jurisdictional purposes, it has been frequently held that the attorney's fee may properly be aggregated with the principal sum, such attorney's fee not being "interest" or "costs" within the meaning of the Federal Removal Act. See Springstead v. Crawfordsville State Bank, 231 U.S. 541, 34 S.Ct. 195, 58 L.Ed. 354; Missouri State Life Ins. Co. et al. v. Jones Adm'r, 290 U.S. 199, 54 S.Ct. 133, 78 L.Ed. 267; Nathan v. Rock Springs Distilling Co., 6 Cir., 10 F.2d 268; Wilson v. Alliance Life Ins. Co., 5 Cir., 108 F.2d 150; Merrigan v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., D.C.E. D.Louisiana, 43 F.Supp. 209; Prudential Ins. Co. of America v. Carlson, 10 Cir., 126 F.2d 607.
It seems, however, that under 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8), supra, the provision of the Removal Act as to sum or value of the matter in controversy has no application to suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce, such as the instant case.
The authorities are numerous which hold that the United States district courts have original jurisdiction of suits arising under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, notwithstanding the fact that the amount involved is less than $3,000, and notwithstanding the fact that there exists no diversity of citizenship. See Robertson v. Argus Hosiery Mills, 6 Cir., 121 F.2d 285; Campbell v. Superior Decalcominia Co., Inc., D.C.N.D. Texas, 31 F. Supp. 663; Townsend et al. v. Boston & M. R. R. (Townsend v. Palmer et al.), D.C.D. Mass., 35 F.Supp. 938; Martin v. Lain Oil & Gas Co., D.C.E.D Illinois, 36 F.Supp. 252; Lefevers v. General Export Iron & Metal Co., D.C.S.D. Texas, 36 F. Supp. 838; Missel v. Overnight Motor Transp. Co., Inc., D.C.D. Maryland, 36 F. Supp. 980.
The wording in Section 41, above quoted, which gives the United States district courts original jurisdiction of suits of this nature, to-wit: Of all suits and proceedings "arising under any law regulating commerce," is identical with the phraseology of Section 71, upon which the defendants rely as giving them grounds for removal. Section 71 provides that any suits "arising under the Constitution or laws of the United States", and of which the United States district courts have original jurisdiction, are removable. So that it would seem to follow that if actions under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 are suits arising under a federal law for the purpose of conferring original jurisdiction, they are likewise suits arising under federal law for the purpose of removal.
While the authorities upon this proposition are in conflict, nevertheless I feel that those which hold that suits under the Fair Labor Standards Act are removable, regardless of citizenship, are the better reasoned ones and should be followed. The authorities holding to the contrary almost universally hold that no cases under the Fair Labor Standards Act are removable regardless of amount, or diversity of citizenship. The effect of such decisions, it would seem, is to hold that the Fair Labor Standards Act repealed, by implication, all of the provisions of the code upon removal of actions to the United States district courts.
Among other authorities holding that Fair Labor Standards Act cases are removable, the court in Ricciardi v. Lazzara Baking Corporation, D.C.D.N.J., 32 F.Supp. 956, 957, said:
In Mengel Co. v. Ishee, 192 Miss. 366, 4 So.2d 878, 879, the court said in part:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. Butler Bros.
...Apple v. Shulman Publications, Inc., D.C.D.N. J., 65 F.Supp. 677. Reported federal cases sustaining removability: Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., D.C.D.Minn., 54 F.Supp. 29; Koskala v. Butler Brothers, D.C.D.Minn., 65 F.Supp. 276; Ricciardi v. Lazzara Baking Corporation, D.C.D.N.J., 32 F......
-
Young v. Arbyrd Compress Co.
...Powder Co., D.C.D.Del., 1945, 63 F.Supp. 434; Wright v. Long, D.C.W.D. Mo., 1944, 65 F.Supp. 279. For removal — Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., D.C.Minn., 1944, 54 F.Supp. 29; Cox v. Gatliff Coal Co., D.C.E.D.Ky., 1943, 52 F.Supp. In support of removal, counsel also cites opinions of the......
-
Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Anderson
... ... action to recover liability under the act to be ... employee to institute and prosecute civil action for recovery ... of his statutory benefit ... state or federal, which, by the law of its creation, may ... § ... 216(b).' Booth v. Montgomery Ward & Co., D.C., 44 ... F.Supp. 451 ... Sonnesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., D.C., 54 F.Supp ... ...
-
Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Anderson
...Act is removable to the federal District Court. The plaintiff in error in its brief in support of such motion cites Son-nesyn v. Federal Cartridge Co., D.C., 54 F.Supp. 29, decided February 14, 1944, and the Sonnesyn case is the only case cited by the plaintiff in error that was decided sin......