TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

United Shoe Workers v. Brooks Shoe Manufacturing Co.

UNITED SHOE WORKERS OF AMERICA, AFL-CIO v. BROOKS SHOE MANUFACTURING COMPANY

United Shoe Workers v. Brooks Shoe Mfg. Co., 191 F. Supp. 288 (E.D. Pa. 1960)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · Federal District Courts
Decided
July 28, 1960
Docket
No. 24049
Judges
Wood
Citations
191 F. Supp. 2884 Fed. R. Serv. 2d 32447 L.R.R.M. (BNA) 21701960 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3643

Opinion of the Court — Wood

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

WOOD, District Judge.

The question presented is whether the individuals, who were formerly employed by the defendants, may join in this suit with the union against their former employers. The union has properly invoked the jurisdiction of the Court under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185 (a).

The individual plaintiffs do not contend that the Court would have jurisdiction over their causes of action against their former employer if their union had not brought this suit. They do contend that they may join as proper plaintiffs with their union in this suit and that the Court may exercise its jurisdiction to adjudicate the entire dispute. The plaintiffs rely upon the case of Hurn v. Ours-ler, 1933, 289 U.S. 238 , 53 S.Ct. 586 , 77 L.Ed. 1148 , and upon Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U. S.C.A.

As we read Hurn v. Oursler, supra, that case clearly distinguishes between the power of a Federal Court to entertain a non-Federal ground for relief when asserted together with a Federal ground for relief and a case in which a non-Federal cause of action is attempted to be joined with a Federal cause of action. In the latter case, the Federal Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the non-Federal cause of action.

Although the phrase “cause of action” can undoubtedly have different meanings for different purposes, we think that as applied to the question before us, the individual plaintiffs have separate non-Federal causes of action. The attempted joinder of the non-Federal causes of action with the union’s Federal cause of action does not empower us to exercise our jurisdiction over the former causes of action.

Therefore, the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the individual plaintiffs is hereby Granted.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1964: 319642026peak 1964 · 3

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad Company331 F.2d 530 (4th Cir. 1964)
  2. St. Louis Mailers' Union Local No. 3 v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co.233 F. Supp. 529 (E.D. Mo. 1964)
  3. Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad331 F.2d 530 (4th Cir. 1964)

Most recent

  1. St. Louis Mailers' Union Local No. 3 v. Globe-Democrat Publishing Co.233 F. Supp. 529 (E.D. Mo. 1964)
  2. Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad Company331 F.2d 530 (4th Cir. 1964)
  3. Rumbaugh v. Winifrede Railroad331 F.2d 530 (4th Cir. 1964)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 1

DepthCaseCited by
Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238 (1933) 701

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list