MacKay v. LOEW'S INCORPORATED
Imackay v. Loew’s Incorporated
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Hall (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss a declaratory judgment action brought by an individual plaintiff against his former employer regarding expired contracts. The court granted the motion to dismiss because the contract had expired before the action was commenced, but allowed the plaintiff thirty days to amend the complaint.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss granted“The motion to dismiss will be granted, and the plaintiff may have thirty days to amend.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the principle that declaratory relief is generally unavailable when the underlying contract has expired and the time for performance has passed, rendering the controversy moot. The court also correctly noted that the plaintiff, as an individual, lacked standing to invoke jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, which typically requires a union or employer party. Allowing time to amend is a standard procedural accommodation when dismissal is based on curable defects or when the court wishes to give the plaintiff an opportunity to state a viable claim (such as under Section 303) that was not fully addressed. |
The order itself: sound — The order is concise but legally sound. It relies on companion cases to establish jurisdictional limits and cites specific authority for the mootness of the declaratory claim due to the expiration of the contract. It correctly identifies that the individual plaintiff cannot invoke Section 301 jurisdiction. The decision to allow amendment is procedurally appropriate.
Opinion — Hall
HALL, District Judge.
This is a companion case to Schatte v. International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Emp., Number 6063, D.C., 70 F.Supp. 1008; Id., Number 7304, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 669, and Studio Carpenters Local Union v. Loew’s Incorporated, Number 8864, D.C., 84 F.Supp. 675, No.
The principal difference is that here the plaintiff, an individual, sues on behalf of himself alone for declaratory relief as to his former employer alone, under the same contracts involved in the above numbered cases.
Diversity of citizenship is present.
Reference is made to the Memorandiim filed in No. 7304, and,,in No. 8864. From them it is seen that the plaintiff is not a proper party to give this court jurisdiction in an action filed under Section 301 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 185; also, that this court does not have jurisdiction of any claim for relief attempted to be stated under the 5th and 14th Amendments to the U. S. Constitution, the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 301 et seq., the California Unemployment Act, Gen.Laws Cal. Act 8780d, the Civil Rights Act, 8 U.S.C.A. § 41 et seq., or the AntiTrust Laws.
The defendant bases its motion to dismiss on several grounds. It is unnecessary to pass on all of them as the motion to dismiss must be granted for the reason that it appears that the contract involved expired not later than July 2, 1948, which was several months before the commencement of this action. Declaratory relief will not lie where time for performance has passed. Murphy v. North American Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 24 F.Supp. 471, 480.
Plaintiff seeks no damages. Whether or not he can state a cause of action under Section 303 of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 187, need not now be decided. The motion to dismiss will be granted, and the plaintiff may have thirty days to amend.
Cites, in this corpus
Cited by
- Studio Carpenters Local Union v. Loew's Incorporated 8864 · 1949-05-27