Strawser v. Reading Co., Civ. A. No. 8206.
| Court | United States District Courts. 3th Circuit. United States District Court (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) |
| Writing for the Court | McGRANERY |
| Citation | 80 F. Supp. 455 |
| Parties | STRAWSER v. READING CO. |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 8206. |
| Decision Date | 22 October 1948 |
80 F. Supp. 455
STRAWSER
v.
READING CO.
Civ. A. No. 8206.
United States District Court E. D. Pennsylvania.
October 22, 1948.
Maurice Abrams, of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Frederick H. Knight, Miles W. Kirkpatrick and Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
McGRANERY, District Judge.
This is an equitable action brought by a former employee of defendant, The Reading Company. The substance of the allegations in the complaint is that plaintiff, Mary Strawser, was laid off by defendant in violation of the terms of a collective bargaining agreement applicable to her and entered into between the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen and the defendant. Plaintiff seeks restoration to her rightful position on defendant's seniority list and recompense for her loss of wages. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The complaint alleges that petitioner and defendant are both citizens of Pennsylvania but that jurisdiction of this suit is conferred by 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8),1 which provides that:
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction as follows: Eighth. Of all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce."
Plaintiff argues that the Railway Labor Act of 1934, 45 U.S.C.A. § 151 et seq., is a law "regulating commerce" and that this suit arises under it. Defendant, in effect, concedes the first part of this contention but disputes the second.
The question at issue in the instant case has been raised not infrequently in the lower federal courts. Thus, Burke v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 10 Cir., 129 F.2d 844, involved an action by a yard switchman against the railroad employer for breach of contract as evidenced in rules and regulations agreed to by the Brotherhood and the carrier. The Circuit Court affirmed a dismissal of the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. Similarly, in Shipley v. Pittsburgh and Lake Erie Railroad Co., D.C., 70 F.Supp. 870, 878,
"I believe that my position was not well taken in the conclusion which I formerly reached, in holding that the facts in the instant case raise a question under the * * * Railway Labor Act * * * Although the parties to this proceeding were governed by the act, the right of action, if one exists, is based on the alleged breach of a custom which it is alleged should be considered a part of the contract; the cause of action does not arise under the Railway Labor Act but only from the consequent contractual relations of the parties. The wrongful breach of such contractual relations does not confer jurisdiction upon the federal court unless there is a diversity of citizenship and the jurisdictional amount * * *."
Although there are some decisions to the contrary, Primakow v. Railway Express Agency, D.C., 57 F.Supp. 933; Illinois Cent. R. Co. v. Moore, 5 Cir., 112 F.2d 959, reversed on other grounds, 312 U.S. 630, 61 S.Ct. 754, 85 L.Ed. 1089, these would seem to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Starke v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., No. 10023.
...U.S. 671, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 538; Shipley et al. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 70 F.Supp. 870, and Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 455. In the latter category are three decisions, all decided November 22, 1943, Switchmen's Union of North America et al. v. National Mediation......
-
Gunkel v. Garvey
...Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies'. (Strawser v. Reading Company, 80 F.Supp. 455 [D.C.Pa.1948]; Bohannon v. Reading Company, 168 F.Supp. 662 Those cases cited earlier for the proposition that the duty of railway unions to ......
-
Air Line Dispatchers Ass'n v. CALIFORNIA EASTERN AIR., No. 33772.
...upon the Federal Court. Barnhart v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 709; Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.1948, 80 F.Supp. 455; Hayes v. Union Pac. R. Co., 9 Cir., 1950, 184 F. 2d 337, affirming D.C.N.D.Cal.1950, 88 F.Supp. 108; Starke v. New York, Chicago & St. Lou......
-
Duplisea v. Maine Central Railroad, No. 5368.
...1951, 191 F.2d 73, 78-79, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 897, 72 S.Ct. 231, 96 L.Ed. 672; Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C.E.D.Pa. 1948, 80 F.Supp. 455. A judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District...
-
Starke v. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co., No. 10023.
...U.S. 671, 63 S.Ct. 75, 87 L.Ed. 538; Shipley et al. v. Pittsburgh & L. E. R. Co., 70 F.Supp. 870, and Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C., 80 F.Supp. 455. In the latter category are three decisions, all decided November 22, 1943, Switchmen's Union of North America et al. v. National Mediation......
-
Gunkel v. Garvey
...Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies'. (Strawser v. Reading Company, 80 F.Supp. 455 [D.C.Pa.1948]; Bohannon v. Reading Company, 168 F.Supp. 662 Those cases cited earlier for the proposition that the duty of railway unions to ......
-
Air Line Dispatchers Ass'n v. CALIFORNIA EASTERN AIR., No. 33772.
...upon the Federal Court. Barnhart v. Western Maryland Ry. Co., 4 Cir., 1942, 128 F.2d 709; Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C.E.D. Pa.1948, 80 F.Supp. 455; Hayes v. Union Pac. R. Co., 9 Cir., 1950, 184 F. 2d 337, affirming D.C.N.D.Cal.1950, 88 F.Supp. 108; Starke v. New York, Chicago & St. Lou......
-
Duplisea v. Maine Central Railroad, No. 5368.
...1951, 191 F.2d 73, 78-79, certiorari denied, 1951, 342 U.S. 897, 72 S.Ct. 231, 96 L.Ed. 672; Strawser v. Reading Co., D.C.E.D.Pa. 1948, 80 F.Supp. 455. A judgment will be entered affirming the order of the District...