Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Convention's aforesaid
action taken on September 14, 1960, after the Act became law,
relates back to February 14, 1959, the date of the original
In view of fundamental rules of construction, as well as a lack
of expression or indication of any legislative intent that the
Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 be applied
retrospectively, this court is of the opinion that it cannot be
so applied. "Retroactivity, even where permissible, is not
favored, except upon the clearest mandate." (Claridge Apartments
Co. v. Com'r, 323 U.S. 141, 164, 65 S.Ct. 172, 184, 89 L.Ed.
139). Plaintiffs, therefore, have no right of action under the
Act, and this court is without jurisdiction as to Counts I, II
and III of the complaint.
Turning to Counts IV and V: Plaintiffs argue that these Counts
state claims arising under the common law of the State of
Illinois and that this court has pendant jurisdiction of such
claims under the doctrine of Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U.S. 238, 53
S.Ct. 586, 77 L.Ed. 1148. In the instant case, however, since
this court has no jurisdiction over the federal claims alleged in
each of the first three Counts, it can have no jurisdiction over
the non-federal claims alleged in Counts IV and V — absent
Defendants Hayes, White, Gibson and Christensen have moved to
quash the summons herein and the returns of service of summons,
and to dismiss the complaint and action as to said defendants on
the grounds that (a) said defendants are residents of states
other than the State of Illinois and (b) said defendants have not
been personally served with a copy of the summons and complaint
within the territorial limits of the State of Illinois. This
court, being in accord with the reasoning of Judge Igoe in the
case of Smith v. Alexandrian, 61 C 160, is of the view that said
motion should be granted.
With the exception of defendant Walter J. Kotfila who was not
served with process, each of the defendants in this proceeding
has moved to dismiss the complaint herein, and, in line with the
views hereinabove expressed, said motions to dismiss should be
Certain of the defendants herein have moved that the complaint
be stricken for failure to comply with Rule 8(a)(2), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., and for failure to comply
with Rule 8(e). It is unnecessary to rule on these motions,
however, because of the granting of aforesaid motions to dismiss.
It is ORDERED —
(1) That the motion of defendants Hayes, White, Gibson and
Christensen to quash the summons herein and the returns of
service of summons, and to dismiss the complaint and action as to
said defendants be and it is hereby granted.
(2) That the motion of each of the defendants herein made to
dismiss the complaint be and it is hereby granted.
© 1992-2003 VersusLaw Inc.