Sochulak v. American Brake Shoe Co.

S.D. New York

Sochulak v. American Brake Shoe Co.

79 F. Supp. 437, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2306

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedJanuary 5, 1948

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 79 F. Supp. 437 (Sochulak v. American Brake Shoe Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Sochulak v. American Brake Shoe Co., 79 F. Supp. 437, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2306 (S.D.N.Y. 1948).

Pincite

Opinion

GODDARD, District Judge.

Motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. The action is brought by a large group of defendant’s employees to recover for overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees. The original complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et scq., was filed January 20, 1947 and after the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. §251 et seq., the complaint was amended.

The services or activities upon which the claims are based consisted of what are generally known as “portal to portal activities” ; such as the employees walking from the entrance of defendant’s plant to the employee’s station or place of work, and back at the end of the working day, [438]*438changing his clothes before and after his work, and punching a time clock.

This court has only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by Congress. Section 2 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 expressly says that no court shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding whether instituted prior to or after the enactment of the Act to enforce any liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act, except an activity which was compensable by either an express provision of a contract, or by a custom -or practice in effect at the time of such activity. The complaint contains no such allegations. Hence, it does not affirmatively appear that this court has jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.

Motion to dismiss complaint is granted with leave to plaintiffs to amend complaint within ten days. Settle order on notice.

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

GODDARD, District Judge.

Motion by defendant to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter. The action is brought by a large group of defendant’s employees to recover for overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorneys' fees. The original complaint under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et scq., was filed January 20, 1947 and after the Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, 29 U.S.C.A. §251 et seq., the complaint was amended.

The services or activities upon which the claims are based consisted of what are generally known as “portal to portal activities” ; such as the employees walking from the entrance of defendant’s plant to the employee’s station or place of work, and back at the end of the working day, [438]*438changing his clothes before and after his work, and punching a time clock.

This court has only such jurisdiction as is conferred upon it by Congress. Section 2 of the Portal to Portal Act of 1947 expressly says that no court shall have jurisdiction of any action or proceeding whether instituted prior to or after the enactment of the Act to enforce any liability under the Fair Labor Standards Act, except an activity which was compensable by either an express provision of a contract, or by a custom -or practice in effect at the time of such activity. The complaint contains no such allegations. Hence, it does not affirmatively appear that this court has jurisdiction, and the complaint must be dismissed.

Motion to dismiss complaint is granted with leave to plaintiffs to amend complaint within ten days. Settle order on notice.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

79 F. Supp. 437, 1948 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2306, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sochulak-v-american-brake-shoe-co-nysd-1948.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack