Alameda v. Paraffine Companies

N.D. California

Alameda v. Paraffine Companies

75 F. Supp. 282, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1859

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. California

DecidedNovember 24, 1947

DocketNos. 26737-R, 26756-H, 26759-R, 26777-G, 26781-G

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 75 F. Supp. 282 (Alameda v. Paraffine Companies) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Alameda v. Paraffine Companies, 75 F. Supp. 282, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1859 (N.D. Cal. 1947).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the motions of the above-named defendants to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs herein be and the same hereby are granted and said complaints are hereby dismissed by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over such actions. Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, Section 2(a) (b) (c) and (d), Chapter 52, Public Law 49, 29 U.S.C.A. § 252(a-d); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, D.C.N.D. Texas, May 21, 1947, 71 F.Supp. 929; Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C.Oregon, June 9, 1947, 72 F.Supp. 21; Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corporation, D.C.S.D.Texas, July 17, 1947, 72 F.Supp. 690; Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D.Wash., May 26, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 288; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, July 23, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 308; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn., July 25, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 264; Bartels v. Sperti, D.C.S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 751; Holland v. General Motors Corporation, D.C.W.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 1947, 75 F.Supp. 274.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the motions of the above-named defendants to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs herein be and the same hereby are granted and said complaints are hereby dismissed by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over such actions. Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, Section 2(a) (b) (c) and (d), Chapter 52, Public Law 49, 29 U.S.C.A. § 252(a-d); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, D.C.N.D. Texas, May 21, 1947, 71 F.Supp. 929; Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C.Oregon, June 9, 1947, 72 F.Supp. 21; Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corporation, D.C.S.D.Texas, July 17, 1947, 72 F.Supp. 690; Cochran v. St. Paul & Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D.Wash., May 26, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 288; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, July 23, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 308; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn., July 25, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 264; Bartels v. Sperti, D.C.S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 1947, 73 F.Supp. 751; Holland v. General Motors Corporation, D.C.W.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 1947, 75 F.Supp. 274.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

75 F. Supp. 282, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1859, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/alameda-v-paraffine-companies-cand-1947.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack