Stenger v. Stenger Broadcasting Corporation, 166.
| Decision Date | 31 July 1939 |
| Docket Number | No. 166.,166. |
| Citation | 28 F. Supp. 407 |
| Parties | STENGER v. STENGER BROADCASTING CORPORATION et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania |
R. Lawrence Coughlin, of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for plaintiff.
Herman J. Goldberg, Howard E. Kennedy, and Francis J. Murray, all of Wilkes-Barre, Pa., for defendants.
This is a motion by defendants to dismiss the action, and to discharge a rule to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be granted.
The following are the essential facts: John H. Stenger, Jr., the plaintiff, holds a license from the Federal Communications Commission to operate radio broadcasting station WBAX, located at Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania.
The plaintiff has executed certain contracts whereby he has promised to assign his license to the defendants, subject to the approval of the Federal Communications Commission, and whereby he has agreed with defendants on certain arrangements for the operation and control of the station, pending the approval of the commission. The parties to these contracts could not agree on their respective rights thereunder, and on April 19, 1939, the Stenger Broadcasting Corporation, and Glenn D. Gillett brought a bill in equity in the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, against John H. Stenger, Jr., alleging that he had violated his agreement, asking for a special injunction to preserve the status quo pending final determination of the bill, and for certain other relief. On May 1, 1939, the Luzerne County Court issued an order directing that the status quo be maintained as it existed at the time of filing the bill, and restraining John H. Stenger, Jr., from selling or encumbering the title to his license pending the trial of the case.
On May 10, 1939, John H. Stenger, Jr., filed a complaint in this court alleging that as a result of the special injunction issued by the Court of Common Pleas of Luzerne County, the defendants are interfering with the control and operation of Station WBAX in violation of Section 310(b) of the Federal Communications Act of 1934, 47 U.S.C.A. § 310(b), which provides that a radio station license shall not be transferred without the consent of the Communications Commission. The complaint also requests a mandatory injunction requiring the defendants to give plaintiff the entire business management and control of Station WBAX. This would violate the status quo as it existed at the time of the order of the Luzerne County Court which directed that the "status quo" be maintained until final disposition of the case by that court.
On May 12, 1939, a rule was granted on the defendants to show cause why the prayer of the complaint should not be granted, and on the same day the defendants moved to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction, and to discharge the rule. This motion and rule were argued on May 15, 1939.
The defendants contend that the state court has exclusive jurisdiction of the matter, and that Section 265 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 379, prohibits this court from interfering. It is contended by the plaintiff, however, that this court has exclusive jurisdiction because the interpretation and enforcement of the Federal Communications Act is involved.
An examination of the record shows that there are two distinct aspects of this case: (1) The rights and obligations of the parties under the various contracts which they entered into; and (2) an alleged violation of the Communications Act. These matters will be considered in this order.
The interpretation and enforcement of the contracts, which the parties entered into, requires no direct application of the Federal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Regents of New Mexico v. Albuquerque Broadcasting Co.
...10 Cir., 129 F.2d 828, 830. 19 McIntire v. Wm. Penn Broadcasting Co. of Philadelphia, 3 Cir., 151 F.2d 597; Stenger v. Stenger Broadcasting Corporation, D.C.Pa., 28 F.Supp. 407. 20 Pennsylvania R. v. Sonman Coal Co., 242 U.S. 120, 124, 37 S.Ct. 46, 61 L.Ed. 188; Great Northern R. v. Merchan......
-
TOLEDO, P. & WRR v. BROTHERHOOD OF RR TRAINMEN, ETC.
...Shulthis v. McDougal, 225 U. S. 561, 32 S.Ct. 704, 56 L.Ed. 1205; Sharp v. Barnhart, 7 Cir., 117 F.2d 604; Stenger v. Stenger Broadcasting Corp., D.C.Pa., 28 F.Supp. 407; Partridge Lumber Co. v. Michigan Central Ry., 8 Cir., 26 F.2d 615; Peyton v. Railway Express, 5 Cir., 124 F.2d 430; Post......
-
Themy v. Seagull Enterprises, Inc.
...§§ 151 et seq.; Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U.S. 120, 65 S.Ct. 1475, 89 L.Ed. 2092 (1945).9 Stenger v. Stenger Broadcasting Corporation, 28 F.Supp. 407 (D.C.Pa.1939); Regents of University System of Georgia v. Carroll, 338 U.S. 586, 70 S.Ct. 370, 94 L.Ed. 363 (1950).10 326 U.S. ......
-
Ogden v. Police Jury of Concordia Parish, La.
... ... E. E. De Montluzin Co. v. N. O. & N. E. R. Co., 166 La. 822, 118 So. 33, and Askew et al. v. Vicksburg & S. P ... ...