FEDERAL PROCEDURE-VENUE-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 1404(a) OF NEW TITLE 28 TO ANTI-TRUST SUITS

Working directly from a branch office in Washington, D.C., defendant corporation solicited orders and distributed films in the state of Virginia, although it had not registered as a foreign corporation in that state. Alleging that the defendant had violated the anti-trust laws by its activities in Virginia, plaintiff brought a civil action for damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pursuant to section 14O4(a) of Title 28 U.S.C. defendant moved to transfer the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Held, since the defendant was not transacting business in Virginia sufficient to satisfy the venue provisions of the anti-trust acts and had not shown a preponderance of circumstances favoring the transfer as required by section 1404(a), motion denied. Hampton Theatres Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, (D.C.D.C. 1950) 90 F. Supp. 645

LABOR LAW-ARBITRATION-APPLICABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ARBITRATION ACT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS

Plaintiff brought an action in the federal district court for Pennsylvania against the defendant labor union for damages caused by a strike, allegedly in violation of a written collective bargaining agreement between them. This contract also provided, inter alia, for submission to arbitration of all differences arising between the parties under the contract. However, no arbitration had been had prior to this suit. Defendant moved to stay all proceedings pending arbitration, allegedly as authorized by section 3 of the United States .Arbitration .Act providing for such stays in . . . any suit or proceeding . . . brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration . . .. Plaintiff urged that these words were limited by section 1, the definition section of the act, which contained a clause that . . . nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment. . .. The district court sustained defendant\u27s arguments and further pointed out that even if section I were applicable to section, it was doubtful that a collective bargaining agreement was a contract of employment for purposes of exclusion from the act4 On appeal, held, reversed. Contracts of employment, which include collective bargaining agreements, are excluded from the operation of the entire Arbitration Act. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1063, (3d Cir. 1952) 193 F. (2d) 327

FEDERAL PROCEDURE-VENUE-APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 1404(a) OF NEW TITLE 28 TO ANTI-TRUST SUITS

Working directly from a branch office in Washington, D.C., defendant corporation solicited orders and distributed films in the state of Virginia, although it had not registered as a foreign corporation in that state. Alleging that the defendant had violated the anti-trust laws by its activities in Virginia, plaintiff brought a civil action for damages and injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Pursuant to section 14O4(a) of Title 28 U.S.C. defendant moved to transfer the action to the District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Held, since the defendant was not transacting business in Virginia sufficient to satisfy the venue provisions of the anti-trust acts and had not shown a preponderance of circumstances favoring the transfer as required by section 1404(a), motion denied. Hampton Theatres Inc. v. Paramount Film Distributing Corporation, (D.C.D.C. 1950) 90 F. Supp. 645

LABOR LAW-ARBITRATION-APPLICABILITY OF THE UNITED STATES ARBITRATION ACT TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENTS

Plaintiff brought an action in the federal district court for Pennsylvania against the defendant labor union for damages caused by a strike, allegedly in violation of a written collective bargaining agreement between them. This contract also provided, inter alia, for submission to arbitration of all differences arising between the parties under the contract. However, no arbitration had been had prior to this suit. Defendant moved to stay all proceedings pending arbitration, allegedly as authorized by section 3 of the United States .Arbitration .Act providing for such stays in . . . any suit or proceeding . . . brought in any of the courts of the United States upon any issue referable to arbitration . . .. Plaintiff urged that these words were limited by section 1, the definition section of the act, which contained a clause that . . . nothing herein contained shall apply to contracts of employment. . .. The district court sustained defendant\u27s arguments and further pointed out that even if section I were applicable to section, it was doubtful that a collective bargaining agreement was a contract of employment for purposes of exclusion from the act4 On appeal, held, reversed. Contracts of employment, which include collective bargaining agreements, are excluded from the operation of the entire Arbitration Act. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, Inc. v. Amalgamated Association of Street, Electric Railway, & Motor Coach Employees of America, Division 1063, (3d Cir. 1952) 193 F. (2d) 327