Case Name: RICHMAN BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants
Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1953-01-21
Citations: 116 F. Supp. 800
Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 29671
Parties: RICHMAN BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 116
Pages: 800–801

Head Matter:
RICHMAN BROTHERS COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. AMALGAMATED CLOTHING WORKERS OF AMERICA et al., Defendants.
Civ. A. No. 29671.
United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.
Jan. 21, 1953.
Jones, Day, Cockley & Reavis, Cleveland, Ohio (Luther Day, Cleveland, Ohio, of counsel), for plaintiff.
Corrigan, MacMahon & Corrigan, Cleveland, Ohio (William J. Corrigan and Moses Krislov, Cleveland, Ohio, and William J. Isaacson, New York City), for defendants.

Opinion:
McNAMEE, District Judge.
The arguments submitted in defendants' brief in support of their motion for a reconsideration are but restatements of arguments previously submitted. In their reargument defendants imply that the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Direct Transit Lines v. Local Union No. 406, 199 F.2d 89, approved the proposition that a District Court may remove a case even though it is without jurisdiction to hear and determine the ease on its merits. The court's opinion does not support this claim. The Court of Appeals commented upon In re Winn, 213 U.S. 458, 29 S.Ct. 515, 53 L.Ed. 873, and among other things said: "The ultimate test was said to be whether the action could have been originally brought in the federal court. If so, jurisdiction should be retained." [199 F.2d 90.] The view expressed by this court in its original memorandum that "Jurisdiction to remove a ease from state courts rests upon the District Court's jurisdiction to hear and decide the case so removed" [114 F.Supp. 190] is consistent with the above-quoted statement from Direct Transit Lines.
Defendants' application for reconsideration is overruled.