MacDonald v. Martinelli

S.D. New York

MacDonald v. Martinelli

120 F. Supp. 382, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2053

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided May 22, 1953·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

CONGER, District Judge.

The defendants moved at the pre-trial conference to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations.

Since Judge Samuel H. Kaufman has held that Section 16(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), relating to the filing of consents, is inapplicable to this suit, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 383, the defendants are precluded from using the filing dates of such consents nevertheless filed as a basis for asserting the statute of limitations found in Sections 6 and 7 of the Portal to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 255, 266. The statute of limitations runs [383]*383from the filing date of the complaint. Cf. Burrell v. LaFollette Coach Lines, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 279.

Motion denied.

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

CONGER, District Judge.

The defendants moved at the pre-trial conference to amend their answer to plead the statute of limitations.

Since Judge Samuel H. Kaufman has held that Section 16(b) of the Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 216(b), relating to the filing of consents, is inapplicable to this suit, D.C., 120 F.Supp. 383, the defendants are precluded from using the filing dates of such consents nevertheless filed as a basis for asserting the statute of limitations found in Sections 6 and 7 of the Portal to Portal Act, 29 U.S.C.A. §§ 255, 266. The statute of limitations runs [383]*383from the filing date of the complaint. Cf. Burrell v. LaFollette Coach Lines, D.C., 97 F.Supp. 279.

Motion denied.

MacDonald v. Martinelli, 120 F. Supp. 382, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2053 (S.D.N.Y. 1953).

Pincite

120 F. Supp. 382 (MacDonald v. Martinelli) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related