Derber v. Moberly

98 F. Supp. 769, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299
CourtDistrict Court, D. Kansas
DecidedJuly 13, 1951
DocketNo. KC-145
StatusPublished

This text of 98 F. Supp. 769 (Derber v. Moberly) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Kansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Derber v. Moberly, 98 F. Supp. 769, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299 (D. Kan. 1951).

Opinion

MELLOTT. Chief Judge.

The issue, raised by a motion to dismiss, is whether this court has jurisdiction of an action instituted by a tenant under Section 205 of the Housing and Rent Act of 19471 to recover treble damages in an amount less than $3000 for alleged overcharges in rent.

The question has not been passed upon by the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals for this (the Tenth) Circuit. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit approved dismissal for want of jurisdiction in Fields v. Washington.2 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit took a contrary view in Adler v. Northern Hotel Co.,3 Judge, now Mr. Justice Minton [770]*770dissenting. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit appears to have followed the Adler case in a per curiam opinion in Garlin v. Currie,4 one judge dissenting.

District Judges in circuits other than the Third, Fifth and Seventh have struggled with the problem. In the cases cited in Footnote5, below, Fields v. Washington was followed. In those cited in Footnote 6, below, the majority decision in Adler v. Northern Hotel Co. was followed. One of the latest, decided by Judge Ridge of the Western District of Missouri, Frasher v. Estes,6 pretty generally expresses the view of this court.

It would serve no useful purpose to extend this opinion by attempting to rationalize the conclusion reached. The court is of the view the motion to dismiss should be denied. Order so providing and allowing the defendants ten days in which to answer should be prepared by counsel for the plaintiff. Settle in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. and this court’s Rules of Practice.

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

Related

Adams v. Backlund
81 F. Supp. 643 (D. Nebraska, 1948)
Fields v. Washington
173 F.2d 701 (Third Circuit, 1949)
Adler v. Northern Hotel Co.
175 F.2d 619 (Seventh Circuit, 1949)
McCrae v. Johnson
84 F. Supp. 220 (D. Maryland, 1949)
Hershenrader v. Campbell
85 F. Supp. 75 (W.D. Kentucky, 1949)
Albright v. Nelson
87 F. Supp. 737 (D. Minnesota, 1949)
Burns v. Bishop
88 F. Supp. 1 (W.D. Arkansas, 1950)
Temmerman v. Scafidi
88 F. Supp. 527 (N.D. California, 1950)
Aram v. Hazelwood Apartments Co.
89 F. Supp. 836 (E.D. Michigan, 1950)
Frasher v. Estes
95 F. Supp. 74 (W.D. Missouri, 1951)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
98 F. Supp. 769, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2299, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/derber-v-moberly-ksd-1951.