Velma HIBBLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILLER’S OF BIRMINGHAM BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

Fifth Circuit

Velma HIBBLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILLER’S OF BIRMINGHAM BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee

496 F.2d 1171

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedAugust 2, 1974

Docket74-1320

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 496 F.2d 1171 (Velma HIBBLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILLER’S OF BIRMINGHAM BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Velma HIBBLER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MILLER’S OF BIRMINGHAM BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, INC., Defendant-Appellee, 496 F.2d 1171 (5th Cir. 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

This litigation began as a class action suit praying for declaratory and injunctive relief as to alleged racial employment practices on the part of Miller’s Department Store, the defendant-appellee.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join as an indispensable party the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, with whom the Store had a collective bargaining agreement. Although the complaint contained no averments against the Union, the motion was granted. Thirty days were allowed for the filing of an amended complaint. The amended complaint was likewise dismissed for failure to join the Union as previously ordered by the Court. The record, however, is bereft of any indication that the second dismissal was entered as a sanction for failure to comply with the prior order.

In the absence of such an indication, and considering that the complaint prayed for no relief against the Union, we are of the opinion that neither the first nor the second orders of dismissal should have been entered.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM.

This litigation began as a class action suit praying for declaratory and injunctive relief as to alleged racial employment practices on the part of Miller’s Department Store, the defendant-appellee.

The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to join as an indispensable party the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, AFL-CIO, with whom the Store had a collective bargaining agreement. Although the complaint contained no averments against the Union, the motion was granted. Thirty days were allowed for the filing of an amended complaint. The amended complaint was likewise dismissed for failure to join the Union as previously ordered by the Court. The record, however, is bereft of any indication that the second dismissal was entered as a sanction for failure to comply with the prior order.

In the absence of such an indication, and considering that the complaint prayed for no relief against the Union, we are of the opinion that neither the first nor the second orders of dismissal should have been entered.

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the District Court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.

23 Fair empl.prac.cas. 1588, 24 Empl. Prac. Dec. P 31,235 Barbara Culbreath v. Michael Dukakis, Locals 285 and 509, Service Employees International Union, Afl-Cio, Barbara Culbreath v. Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts Organization of State Engineers and Scientists, Barbara Culbreath v. Michael Dukakis, Massachusetts Law Enforcement Council, Barbara Culbreath v. Michael Dukakis, National Association of Government Employees

630 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1980)

Culbreath v. Dukakis

630 F.2d 15 (First Circuit, 1980)

Potter v. Continental Trailways, Inc.

480 F. Supp. 207 (D. Colorado, 1979)

Eldredge v. Carpenters 46 Northern California Counties Joint Apprenticeship & Training Committee

440 F. Supp. 506 (N.D. California, 1977)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

496 F.2d 1171, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/velma-hibbler-plaintiff-appellant-v-millers-of-birmingham-bankhead-ca5-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack