Case Name: Pink GRAY and L.C. Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 and Safeway Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1984-07-20
Citations: 736 F.2d 1055
Docket Number: No. 84-1096
Parties: Pink GRAY and L.C. Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 and Safeway Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 736
Pages: 1055–1055

Head Matter:
Pink GRAY and L.C. Robinson, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. AMALGAMATED MEAT CUTTERS LOCAL 540 and Safeway Stores, Inc., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 84-1096
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
July 20, 1984.
Les Weisbrod, Dallas, Tex., for plaintiffs-appellants.
Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, G. William Baab, Dallas, Tex., for Amalgamated Meat Cutters Local 540.
Clark, West, Keller, Butler & Ellis, Allen Butler, Michael P. Maslanka, Dallas, Tex., for Safeway Stores.
Before TATE, HIGGINBOTHAM and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiffs appeal from the dismissal of their suit because of the running of the statute of limitations. DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 462 U.S. 151, 103 S.Ct. 2281, 76 L.Ed.2d 476 (1983) established a six-month limitations period for employees' suits against an employer and a union under section 301 of the LMRA. Plaintiffs argue that Edwards v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 720 F.2d 857 (5th Cir.1983) established that the retroactivity of DelCostello is to be determined on a case-by-case basis, and that the circumstances of this case militate against retroactive application. Plaintiffs' interpretation of Edwards, however, is incorrect. Edwards established that DelCostello is to be applied retroactively to all cases in our circuit. See Farr v. H.K. Porter, Inc., 727 F.2d 502, 505 (5th Cir.1984); Edwards, 720 F.2d at 859 ("The sole issue we must decide is whether DelCostello applies retroactively. We hold that it does____").
Accordingly, the judgment of the court below is AFFIRMED.