Charles E. Weber v. Heat Control Co

728 F.2d 599, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1115, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit
DecidedMarch 7, 1984
Docket83-5054
StatusPublished
Cited by27 cases

This text of 728 F.2d 599 (Charles E. Weber v. Heat Control Co) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Charles E. Weber v. Heat Control Co, 728 F.2d 599, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1115, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735 (3d Cir. 1984).

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION OF THE COURT

JAMES HUNTER, III, Circuit Judge.

Plaintiff-appellant, Charles E. Weber, brought this action in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, alleging that the defendant, Heat Control Co., violated the Davis-Bacon Act, 40 U.S.C. § 276a, et seq. (the Act) in that it failed to pay prevailing wages for insulation work which Weber had performed for Heat Control Co. in connection with that company’s contract with the government for roof insulation at the Veterans Administration Medical Center in Lyons, New Jersey.

The defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that the Davis-Bacon Act did not create a private right of action and that the plaintiff, as an independent sub-contractor, fell outside of the scope of the Act. It was further asserted that plaintiff’s rights were to be determined by oral contract.

The district court was thus presented with the question of whether or not the Act creates an implied private right of action to enforce a contract that does contain Act specifications.

The district court, after a careful analysis, granted summary judgment to the defendant, holding that the plaintiff was not possessed of a private right of action. 1 Judge Debevoise’s opinion, Weber v. Heat Control Co., 579 F.Supp. 346 (D.C.N.J. 1982), fully reviews the statutory background and case law.

*600 We affirm for the reasons stated by Judge Debevoise.

1

. Having dismissed the federal claim, the court held that it was without subject matter jurisdiction relative to the alleged oral contract. We agree.

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

Related

Garcia v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc.
324 F. Supp. 3d 76 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Ali v. DLG Dev. Corp.
283 F. Supp. 3d 347 (E.D. Pennsylvania, 2017)
Grim v. Eastern Electric, LLC
767 S.E.2d 267 (West Virginia Supreme Court, 2014)
Lopez Castro v. Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland
59 F. Supp. 3d 9 (District of Columbia, 2014)
Lewis v. Gaylor, Inc.
914 F. Supp. 2d 925 (S.D. Indiana, 2012)
Johnson v. Prospect Waterproofing Company
813 F. Supp. 2d 4 (District of Columbia, 2011)
Jan Grochowski v. Phoenix Construction
318 F.3d 80 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Grochowski v. Phoenix Construction
318 F.3d 80 (Second Circuit, 2003)
Favel v. American Renovation & Construction Co.
2002 MT 266 (Montana Supreme Court, 2002)
United States Ex Rel. Bradbury v. TLT Construction Corp.
138 F. Supp. 2d 237 (D. Rhode Island, 2001)
Livingston v. Shore Slurry Seal, Inc.
98 F. Supp. 2d 594 (D. New Jersey, 2000)
Peatross v. Global Associates
849 F. Supp. 746 (D. Hawaii, 2000)
Wheeler v. Graco Trucking Corp.
985 F.2d 108 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Sherman Wheeler v. Graco Trucking Corporation
985 F.2d 108 (Third Circuit, 1993)
Kenney v. Roland Parson Contracting Corp.
790 F. Supp. 12 (District of Columbia, 1992)
Norling v. Valley Contracting and Pre-Mix
773 F. Supp. 186 (D. North Dakota, 1991)
Stampco Const. Co., Inc. v. Guffey
37 Cont. Cas. Fed. 76,176 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1991)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
728 F.2d 599, 26 Wage & Hour Cas. (BNA) 1115, 1984 U.S. App. LEXIS 24735, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/charles-e-weber-v-heat-control-co-ca3-1984.