Opinion ID: 691975
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: absence of jurisdiction argument

Text: 5 Line contends that the district court did not have jurisdiction to enforce the subpoena. 1 Jurisdiction to enforce a subpoena of the NLRB is governed by 29 U.S.C. Sec. 161(2) which in pertinent part states: 6 (2) Court aid in compelling production of evidence and attendance of witnesses. In case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, any district court of the United States or the United States courts of any Territory or possession, within the jurisdiction of which the inquiry is carried on or within the jurisdiction of which said person guilty of contumacy or refusal to obey is found or resides or transacts business.... [emphasis ours] 7 Line argues that the jurisdiction of inquiry in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 161(2) is the location of the subject of the subpoena. He argues that since he, as the subject of the subpoena, is located in the state of Oklahoma, the proper jurisdiction of this enforcement action is in Oklahoma. Line cites no authority for this proposition and we have found none. We, however, have found contrary authority. 8 In F.T.C. v. Jim Walter Corp., 651 F.2d 251 (5th Cir.1981), the Dallas Regional Officer of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) had issued a subpoena to the Jim Walter Corporation for records needed in an investigation it had undertaken. The defendant refused to supply the information and the FTC went to the district court in the Northern District of Texas to enforce the subpoena. The FTC relied on the following statutory authority: 9 Any of the district courts of the United States within the jurisdiction of which such inquiry is carried on may, in case of contumacy or refusal to obey a subpoena issued to any person, partnership, or corporation, issue an order requiring such person, partnership, or corporation to appear before the commission, or to produce documentary evidence if so ordered, or to give evidence touching the matter in question; and any failure to obey such order of the court may be punished by such court as a contempt thereof. 10 15 U.S.C. Sec. 49. The defendant's home base was in Florida, but one of its subsidiaries had an office in the Northern District of Texas. The defendant argued that the jurisdiction of inquiry should be in Florida since that is where the corporate headquarters was located. This Court rejected the argument. It stated that the statutory term 'inquiry' refers to the entire investigation not just that portion of it involving the party subpoenaed. Id. at 254. Because the FTC's inquiry was being carried on in the Northern District of Texas, we found that jurisdiction was proper. Id. 11 The subpoena enforcement statutes in Jim Walter Corp. and in this case are similarly worded and have the same purpose. We therefore hold that the place of inquiry in 29 U.S.C. Sec. 161(2) is the jurisdiction of the underlying NLRB investigation. In this case, the NLRB's investigation is being undertaken in the Northern District of Texas. Thus, the district court, being located in the Northern District of Texas, had jurisdiction. 12 Line argues that the court in Jim Walter Corp. was not presented the arguments that the subpoena itself defined the place of inquiry and he is correct. However, in Jim Walter Corp., this Court had to define the place of inquiry for 15 U.S.C. Sec. 49. It is this definition that we find applicable to this case. We therefore find this argument to be without merit.