Wilson v. Dias
This text of 72 F. Supp. 198 (Wilson v. Dias) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Defendants’ motion to dismiss must be granted for the following reasons:
1. Jurisdiction of this action is purportedly based upon diversity of citizenship. However, the complaint contains no allegation as to the citizenship of the following defendants: James L. Hill, Robert Walkinshaw, Kensington National Bank, Joseph P. Cattie and Brothers, Enterprise Galvanizing Company, General Smelting Company, Ajax Metal, Superior Zinc Company, American Nickeloid Company, White Brothers Smelting Company, and Pennsylvania Smelting Company.
2. The cause of action alleged presents a “labor dispute” within the meaning of § 13 of the Act of March 23, 1932,1 in that the dispute is “between' one or more employees or associations of employees and one or more employees or associations of employees”, and the controversy concerns the “representation of persons in negotiating, fixing, maintaining, changing, or seeking to arrange terms or conditions of employment.”
Under the provisions of the Act of March 23, 1932, the complaint is defective because it does not allege facts from which the Court could make the findings which, under § 7 of the Act,2 are a prerequisite to injunctive relief; furthermore, § 4(c) of the Act 3 prohibits the granting of the relief requested in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 6, 11, and 12 of the prayer of the complaint.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
72 F. Supp. 198, 1947 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/wilson-v-dias-paed-1947.