Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

LEONARDIS v. LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND

March 18, 1975

JOHN LEONARDIS, Plaintiff,
v.
LOCAL 282 PENSION TRUST FUND, Defendant



The opinion of the court was delivered by: PLATT

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

 PLATT, District Judge.

 The proceeding commenced on November 25, 1974 in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Nassau County, by service of a summons and complaint. The action was then removed to this Court on December 12, 1974.

 The complaint seeks judgment (1) declaring that plaintiff is entitled to a lifetime monthly pension of $330.00 from a pension fund in which his employer participated pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement with his union; and (2) directing the fund to pay such pension.

 Plaintiff now seeks an order dismissing the removal petition of the defendant, Local 282 Pension Trust Fund, and remanding this case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Nassau, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. Section 1447(c), or, in the alternative, granting a transfer to the Westbury Part of this Court.

 Plaintiff takes the position that (1) the Federal District Court has no jurisdiction as this is an action for breach of contract and as such is within the original jurisdiction of the Courts of the State of New York; and (2) that this Court lacks exclusive federal jurisdiction which would render removal of this action from state court to federal court improper.

 Under the Act of June 25, 1948, Chapter 646, 62 Stat. 937 (28 U.S.C. § 1441), actions are removable generally:

 
"(a) Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a state court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.
 
"(b) Any civil action of which the district courts have original jurisdiction founded on a claim or right arising under the Constitution, treaties or laws of the United States shall be removable without regard to the citizenship or residence of the parties . . ."

 The defendants contend that the Federal District Court does have jurisdiction because the action is founded on a claim arising under the Laws of the United States, i.e., it is based upon and requires an interpretation of Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 185 (Taft-Hartley Act), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1001, et seq., (Pension Reform Act of 1974) and 28 U.S.C. § 1337.

 Section 1337 of Title 28 United States Code provides:

 
"The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any civil action or proceeding arising under any Act of Congress regulating commerce or protecting trade and commerce against restraints and monopolies."

 Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act and the Pension Reform Act of 1974 are both acts of Congress regulating commerce. 29 ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.