LOCAL NO. 90, STOVE MOUNTERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, PLAINTIFF-APPELLEE
v.
WELBILT CORPORATION, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court affirmed the district court's denial of the motion to dismiss, finding the complaint properly asserted jurisdiction under Section 301 of the LMRA.
Plaintiff union sued defendant company to enforce a contract providing a pension plan for employees. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the suit …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Contract Enforcement cases and more on FLexlaw
On leave, granted pursuant to Section 1292(b) of Title 28, U.S.C., this cause is here on appeal from the order of United States District Judge Freeman denying defendant-appellant’s motion to dismiss the plaintiff-appellee’s complaint. Plaintiff’s complaint relies on Section 301 of the Labor-Management Relations Act of 1947 (Title 29, U.S.C.A. § 185) for its assertion of jurisdiction of the United States District Court. Defendant's motion charges that the plaintiff’s action is not one that could be brought under said Section 301.
Plaintiff’s complaint sought enforcement of a contract between the plaintiff union, representing defendant’s employees, and defendant company, providing a pension plan to cover said employees. The legal question involved in the motion and relevant authorities are carefully reviewed by the opinion of Judge Freeman. We agree with his conclusion and are satisfied that his opinion adequately covers and disposes of the matter before this Court upon this appeal.
Now, therefore, upon consideration of the record, the briefs, and the oral argument of counsel, IT IS ORDERED that the order of the District Court denying defendant’s motion to dismiss is hereby affirmed for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the District Judge. Local No. 90, etc. v. Welbilt Corporation, D. C., 178 F.Supp. 408.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Rehmar v. Smith, 555 F.2d 1362 (9th Cir. 1976)
-
Alvares v. Haven Erickson, 514 F.2d 156 (9th Cir. 1975)