Wilkins v. Renault Southwest, Inc., Civ. A. No. 3-63-342.
Decision Date | 19 March 1964 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 3-63-342. |
Citation | 227 F. Supp. 647 |
Parties | Carrie Lee WILKINS v. RENAULT SOUTHWEST, INC. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Texas |
Paul W. Leech, Grand Prairie, Tex., for plaintiff.
Spencer Carver, Dallas, Tex., for defendant.
This action was originally commenced in the District Court of Dallas County, Texas, seeking recovery of overtime and liquidated damages totaling $3,289.80, and reasonable attorney's fees, under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq. The case was removed under Title 28, § 1441(b).
Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b) provides that such actions "may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction." The effect of this provision was to confer concurrent jurisdiction on both state and federal courts. Brownsville & Mexico Railway Co. v. Taylor, 266 U.S. 200, 208, 45 S.Ct. 47, 69 L.Ed. 247.
The right of a plaintiff to maintain an action under Title 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b) in a state court may not be defeated by removal of the action to a federal court.
Footnote 7 in the Horton opinion cites Senate Report 1830, 85th Congress, Second Session. This Senate report states:
(Emphasis added). U.S.Code Congressional and Administrative News, 85th Congress, Second Session 1958, Legislative History Vol. 2, p. 3106.
While some district courts have held that the 1948 Judicial Code § 1441 (a), authorizing removal "except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress," reverses the Johnson rule of non-removability,1 the Senate Report leaves no room for doubt that the Congress, which creates and delineates the jurisdiction of federal district courts, thought that the Johnson case correctly stated the law when Congress was holding hearings on the jurisdictional amendments of 1958.
We agree with the Senate Report that Congress had "expressly" provided against removal by the provision of the Fair Labor Standards Act that the employee's suit "may be maintained in any court of competent jurisdiction." This was an express provision against removal within the meaning of § 1441 of the Code of 1948. In enacting the 1948 amendment, Congress intended to limit — not extend — removability. American Fire & Cas. Co. v. Finn (1951) 341 U.S. 6, 9-10, 71 S.Ct. 534, 95 L.Ed. 702.
When enacting the abridging amendments of 1948 and 1958 Congress was aware...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chapman v. 8TH Judicial Juvenile Probation Bd.
...Co., 520 F.Supp. 1026 (W.D.Pa.1981); Carter v. Hill & Hill Truck Line, Inc., 259 F.Supp. 429 (S.D.Tex.1966); Wilkins v. Renault Southwest, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Tex.1964); Rolon v. Flexicore Co. of Puerto Rico, 216 F.Supp. 954 (D.P.R.1963); Dando v. Stonhard Co., 93 F.Supp. 270 (W.D.Mo......
-
Roseman v. Best Buy Co., Inc.
...characterize as evidence of the congressional intent that FLSA actions not be removed. See, e.g., Esquivel, 999 F.Supp. at 865; Wilkins, 227 F.Supp. at 648. That 1958 Senate Report Congress itself has recognized the inadvisability of permitting removal of cases arising under its own laws wh......
-
Breuer v. Jim's Concrete of Brevard, Inc.
...Co., 420 F.Supp. 859 (W.D.Pa.1976); Carter v. Hill & Hill Truck Line, Inc., 259 F.Supp. 429 (S.D.Tex.1966); Wilkins v. Renault Southwest, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Tex.1964); Zorrilla v. Puerto Rican Cement Co., 227 F.Supp. 159 (D.P.R.1964); Rolon v. Flexicore Co., 216 F.Supp. 954 (D.P.R. ......
-
Baldwin v. Sears, Roebuck and Co.
...Bros., 162 F.2d 87 (8th Cir. 1947); Carter v. Hill and Hill Truck Line Inc., 259 F.Supp. 429 (S.D.Tex.1966); Wilkins v. Renault Southwest, Inc., 227 F.Supp. 647 (N.D.Tex.1964). In Johnson v. Butler Bros., supra, the Eighth Circuit held that actions under FLSA were not removable. Its decisio......