Opinion · District Court, N.D. California

Alameda v. Paraffine Companies

Alameda v. Paraffine Companies, 75 F. Supp. 282 (District Court, N.D. California 1947)

Type: Opinion
Court: District Court, N.D. California
Jurisdiction: California
Date: 1947-11-24
Topic: general

PER CURIAM. It is ordered that the motions of the above-named defendants to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs herein be and the same hereby are granted and said complaints are hereby dismissed by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over such actions. Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, Section 2(a) (b) (c) and (d), Chapter 52, Public Law 49, 29 U.S.C.A. § 252(a-d); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, D.C.N.D. Texas, May 21, 1947, 71 F.Supp. 929; Boehle v.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Alameda v. Paraffine Companies. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by: 3 opinions

ALAMEDA v. PARAFFINE COMPANIES, (N.D.Cal. 1947)

75 F. Supp. 282

ALAMEDA et al. v. PARAFFINE COMPANIES, Inc., et al. and four other cases.

Nos. 26737-R, 26756-H, 26759-R, 26777-G, 26781-G.

United States District Court, N.D. California,

S.D.

November 24, 1947.

Actions by Jules Alameda and others against the Paraffine Companies, Inc., and others, Charles J. Smith, District Director, etc., and others against Moore Dry Dock Company and others, Manuel Rodrigues Arriaga and others, etc., against Union Oil Company of California and others, Charles J. Smith, District Director, etc., and others against United Engineering Company, Limited, and others, and Charles J. Smith, District Director, etc., and others against General Engineering Dry Dock Corporation and others. On motions of defendants to dismiss the complaints.

Complaints dismissed.

Gladstein, Anderson, Sawyer Resner, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiffs.

Brobeck, Phleger Harrison, of San Francisco, Cal., for defendants.

Before ROCHE, GOODMAN, and HARRIS, District Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It is ordered that the motions of the above-named defendants to dismiss the complaints of the plaintiffs herein be and the same hereby are granted and said complaints are hereby dismissed by reason of the lack of jurisdiction of the United States District Court over such actions. Portal-to-Portal Act of 1947, Section 2(a)(b)(c) and (d), Chapter 52, Public Law 49,29 U.S.C.A. § 252(a-d); Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule12(b),28U.S.C.A. following section 723c; Burfeind v. Eagle-Picher Co. of Texas, D.C.N.D. Texas, May 21, 1947,71 F. Supp. 929; Boehle v. Electro Metallurgical Co., D.C.Oregon, June 9, 1947,72 F. Supp. 21; Story v. Todd Houston Shipbuilding Corporation, D.C.S.D.Texas, July 17, 1947,72 F. Supp. 690; Cochran v. St. Paul Tacoma Lumber Co., D.C.W.D.Wash., May 26, 1947,73 F. Supp. 288; Fajack v. Cleveland Graphite Co., D.C.N.D.Ohio, July 23, 1947,73 F. Supp. 308; Lasater v. Hercules Powder Co., D.C.E.D.Tenn., July 25, 1947,73 F. Supp. 264; Bartels v. Sperti, D.C.S.D.N.Y., Sept. 2, 1947,73 F. Supp. 751; Holland v. General Motors Corporation, D.C.W.D.N.Y., Sept. 4, 1947,75 F. Supp. 274.West Page 283