Robert I. Samsing v. S & P Company, Doing Business as Maier Brewing Company, and Keller Street Development Company

Ninth Circuit

Robert I. Samsing v. S & P Company, Doing Business as Maier Brewing Company, and Keller Street Development Company

325 F.2d 718

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedDecember 13, 1963

Docket18677_1

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 325 F.2d 718 (Robert I. Samsing v. S & P Company, Doing Business as Maier Brewing Company, and Keller Street Development Company) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Robert I. Samsing v. S & P Company, Doing Business as Maier Brewing Company, and Keller Street Development Company, 325 F.2d 718 (9th Cir. 1963).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought suit under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a)) to rejover wages and other benefits allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it appeared from the complaint and attached agreement that the appellant had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

The collective bargaining agreement simply set out the administrative procedures to be followed in settling grievances. The complaint alleged that “plaintiff has exhausted all of the administrative remedies provided for in said labor agreement or he has attempted to so comply.” Appellee asserts that this allegation is to be ignored as “a mere conclusion, wholly uninformative as to what he claimed to have done to comply or attempt to comply.” Y/e think it was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, for “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his. claim.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102-103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

Appellant brought suit under Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act, 1947 (29 U.S.C.A. § 185(a)) to rejover wages and other benefits allegedly due under a collective bargaining agreement. The District Court dismissed the complaint on the ground that it appeared from the complaint and attached agreement that the appellant had not exhausted his administrative remedies.

The collective bargaining agreement simply set out the administrative procedures to be followed in settling grievances. The complaint alleged that “plaintiff has exhausted all of the administrative remedies provided for in said labor agreement or he has attempted to so comply.” Appellee asserts that this allegation is to be ignored as “a mere conclusion, wholly uninformative as to what he claimed to have done to comply or attempt to comply.” Y/e think it was sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss, for “the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his. claim.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47, 78 S.Ct. 99, 102-103, 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957).

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

325 F.2d 718, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/robert-i-samsing-v-s-p-company-doing-business-as-maier-brewing-ca9-1963.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack