Summers, In re, 87-3915
| Citation | 863 F.2d 20 |
| Decision Date | 19 December 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 87-3915,87-3915 |
| Parties | 130 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 2305, 110 Lab.Cas. P 10,910, 12 Fed.R.Serv.3d 951 In re William L. SUMMERS & Norman A. Fox, Jr., Attorneys-Appellants. CLEVELAND JOURNEYMEN PLUMBER'S UNION, LOCAL NO. 55 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TRG, INC., d/b/a Duisik Plumbing & Heating, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Sixth Circuit |
Robert A. Dixon, Summers, Fox, Dixon & McGinty, Cleveland, Ohio, William L. Summers, Cleveland, Ohio, for attorneys-appellants.
James P. Wilkins, Millisor & Nobil, Akron, Ohio, David E. Schreiner, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant-appellee.
Before KRUPANSKY and GUY, Circuit Judges, and GRAHAM, District Judge. *
Plaintiff 1 appeals from the imposition of $500 in sanctions imposed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 11. The sanctions were ordered subsequent to the voluntary dismissal of an action originally commenced by plaintiff Cleveland Journeymen Plumber's Union, Local No. 55 (Union), in the Court of Common Pleas of Cuyahoga County, Ohio, which was subsequently removed to the federal court.
The complaint, as originally filed, alleged that defendant Duisik breached its contract obligations with the plaintiff Union by subcontracting work to nonunion workers. The complaint also alleged that Duisik had further breached the contract by applying residential pay rates when its workers were performing work on commercial jobs.
After the case was removed to the federal court, the defendant filed a motion to dismiss predicated primarily upon plaintiff's failure to exhaust its contract remedies prior to bringing suit as was required by the collective bargaining agreement. Before the court could rule on the motion to dismiss, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed this action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1).
After the dismissal defendant moved for Rule 11 sanctions predicated, for the most part, on the facts that the plaintiff brought the suit primarily for harassment purposes and that plaintiff's counsel had to know that a prerequisite to filing a suit on a collective bargaining agreement was the exhaustion of contract grievance procedures. A hearing was held and the court subsequently issued an order awarding a $500 sanction against plaintiff's attorneys. No opinion was issued in connection with the order.
On appeal, Duisik, to whom the sanctions were awarded, has not filed a brief since the cost of the brief and counsel's time would be more than the $500 at issue.
Although we have before us only the arguments made by plaintiff Union for reversal, we do have the complete record from the case in the district court. Although we are unable to determine on the present record whether or not this was an appropriate case for sanctions, even if it was, we would nevertheless be compelled to reverse since we conclude that under the circumstances the district court had no jurisdiction to award Rule 11 sanctions.
This case was originally filed in state court. Although it was not filed pursuant to section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, as amended, 29 U.S.C. Sec. 185(a), it is properly construed as such an action. While the federal courts have original jurisdiction over section 301 actions, they do not have exclusive jurisdiction. Krey Packing Company v. Hamilton, 572 F.2d 1280 (8th Cir.1978). Thus, this action was appropriately filed in state court. Plaintiff Union argues that the district court did not have jurisdiction to apply sanctions for a complaint that was appropriately filed in state court insofar as the jurisdiction of the state court was concerned. We have not had occasion to consider this issue, but the other circuits that have, have uniformly concluded that where a complaint is properly filed in state court and then removed to federal court, it is inappropriate for the federal court to apply Rule 11 sanctions for the filing of that complaint.
The plaintiff did not contest the removal nor did it file any opposition to the motion to dismiss, which was the first and only pleading filed by the defendant Duisik. Instead, after the motion to dismiss was filed, the plaintiff Union voluntarily dismissed, as it had a right to do, pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(a)(1). Under such circumstances, we join with those courts that have concluded Rule 11 sanctions are not appropriate. Hurd v. Ralphs Grocery Co., 824 F.2d 806 (9th Cir.1987); Stiefvater Real Estate, Inc. v. Hinsdale, 812 F.2d 805 (2d Cir.1987); Kirby v. Allegheny Beverage Corp., 811 F.2d 253 (4th Cir.1987); Kendrick v. Zanides, 609 F.Supp. 1162 (N.D.Cal.1985).
Where there is authority to the contrary, such authority appears in cases in which the plaintiff took some action after the case was removed to federal court to further prolong the litigation. 2 To its credit, the plaintiff here filed a voluntary dismissal subsequent to defendant's filing of the motion to dismiss.
We realize that defendant has been put to an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Estep v. Combs
...Circuit has, in other circumstances, held the federal rules inapplicable to pre-removal conduct in the state forum. See In re Summers , 863 F.2d 20, 21 (6th Cir. 1988) ("[W]here a complaint is properly filed in state court and then removed to federal court, it is inappropriate for the feder......
-
Schoenberger v. Oselka, 89-2024
...in state court. See id. at 13-18. Other circuits that have faced this issue have reached the same conclusion. See In re Summers, 863 F.2d 20, 21-22 (6th Cir.1988); Hurd v. Ralphs Grocery, Inc., 824 F.2d 806, 808 (9th Cir.1987); Stiefvater Real Estate, Inc. v. Hinsdale, 812 F.2d 805, 809 (2d......
-
Street v. City of Dearborn Heights, Mich.
...in state court and then removed by the defendant to the federal court, citing, among other cases, this Court's decision in In re Summers, 863 F.2d 20 (6th Cir.1988). On February 5, 1993, the trial court denied the motion of plaintiff's attorneys for reconsideration. In that order and in res......