Dykema v. Aluminum Co. of America

N.D. Illinois

Dykema v. Aluminum Co. of America

7 F.R.D. 230, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1690

CourtDistrict Court, N.D. Illinois

DecidedMay 9, 1946

DocketNo. 46C134

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 7 F.R.D. 230 (Dykema v. Aluminum Co. of America) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Illinois primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dykema v. Aluminum Co. of America, 7 F.R.D. 230, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1690 (N.D. Ill. 1946).

Pincite

Opinion

LA BUY, District Judge.

The complaint herein is brought by sixty-six named plaintiffs for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards' Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b). Defendant has filed a motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the cause, or, in the alternative, to strike various portions of the complaint, and for a bill of particulars, and to require the plaintiffs to make the unstricken portions of the complaint definite and certain.

[231]*231The motion to strike the complaint sets forth the respects in which the complaint is deficient. Such deficiencies rest on the failure of plaintiff to set out the exact amounts and exact hours each plaintiff worked, the rate of pay as to each, exact period of employment, character of services, as well as failu're to state a cause of action because of indefiniteness. The court is of the opinion that the complaint adheres to Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in setting forth a short and plain statement of the claim upon which suit is brought. The motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the cause is therefore overruled.

In defendant’s motion for further particulars, the same deficiencies are asserted as appeared in its motion to strike and dismiss. In Ballard v. Consolidated Steel Corp., Ltd., D.C.Cal.1945, 61 F.Supp. 996, a similar motion was made. The court held plaintiffs, one hundred and thirty-two, more or less, would not be required “to identify the years, months and weeks during which each plaintiff claimed to work overtime, the number of hours of overtime within each such week, the amount of overtime which each plaintiff claims to have earned, and the nature of the work performed by each plaintiff, since such information is not within the plaintiffs’ knowledge, but it will be sufficient if each plaintiff states the date he entered defendant’s employment and the date of termination, if any.” The latter being required because of the California three year statute of limitations. That case cites Townsend et al. v. Boston & M. R. R., D.C.Mass., 1940, 35 F.Supp. 938, and Broughton et al. v. Atlantic Co., D.C.Ga., 1942, 47 F.Supp. 850. See also Smith v. Stark Trucking Inc., D.C. Ohio, 1943, 53 F.Supp. 826.

The motions of defendant are overruled and an order not inconsistent with the court’s ruling herein may be presented for entry.

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

LA BUY, District Judge.

The complaint herein is brought by sixty-six named plaintiffs for unpaid overtime compensation pursuant to Section 16(b) of the Fair Labor Standards' Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b). Defendant has filed a motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the cause, or, in the alternative, to strike various portions of the complaint, and for a bill of particulars, and to require the plaintiffs to make the unstricken portions of the complaint definite and certain.

[231]*231The motion to strike the complaint sets forth the respects in which the complaint is deficient. Such deficiencies rest on the failure of plaintiff to set out the exact amounts and exact hours each plaintiff worked, the rate of pay as to each, exact period of employment, character of services, as well as failu're to state a cause of action because of indefiniteness. The court is of the opinion that the complaint adheres to Rule 8(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, in setting forth a short and plain statement of the claim upon which suit is brought. The motion to strike the complaint and dismiss the cause is therefore overruled.

In defendant’s motion for further particulars, the same deficiencies are asserted as appeared in its motion to strike and dismiss. In Ballard v. Consolidated Steel Corp., Ltd., D.C.Cal.1945, 61 F.Supp. 996, a similar motion was made. The court held plaintiffs, one hundred and thirty-two, more or less, would not be required “to identify the years, months and weeks during which each plaintiff claimed to work overtime, the number of hours of overtime within each such week, the amount of overtime which each plaintiff claims to have earned, and the nature of the work performed by each plaintiff, since such information is not within the plaintiffs’ knowledge, but it will be sufficient if each plaintiff states the date he entered defendant’s employment and the date of termination, if any.” The latter being required because of the California three year statute of limitations. That case cites Townsend et al. v. Boston & M. R. R., D.C.Mass., 1940, 35 F.Supp. 938, and Broughton et al. v. Atlantic Co., D.C.Ga., 1942, 47 F.Supp. 850. See also Smith v. Stark Trucking Inc., D.C. Ohio, 1943, 53 F.Supp. 826.

The motions of defendant are overruled and an order not inconsistent with the court’s ruling herein may be presented for entry.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

7 F.R.D. 230, 1946 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1690, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dykema-v-aluminum-co-of-america-ilnd-1946.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack