Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

16622_1 (1968)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit Number: 16622_1 Visitors: 10
Filed: Jan. 04, 1968
Latest Update: Feb. 22, 2020
Summary: 387 F.2d 955 Budd MOYER, and John Gray, on Behalf of Themselves and the Other Members of Bricklayers Local No. 12 Chester, Pa., Similarly Situated, Appellants, v. Richard KIRKPATRICK, Barry Clendening, Thomas Fairlie, Sidney Swartz, Trustees of Chester Bricklayers Local No. 12 Welfare Fund, Francis Gilmore, William J. Whelan. No. 16622. United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit. Argued Nov. 8, 1967, Decided Jan. 4, 1968. John J. O'Brien, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Nicholas G. Petrella, Philadelp
More

387 F.2d 955

Budd MOYER, and John Gray, on Behalf of Themselves and the
Other Members of Bricklayers Local No. 12 Chester,
Pa., Similarly Situated, Appellants,
v.
Richard KIRKPATRICK, Barry Clendening, Thomas Fairlie,
Sidney Swartz, Trustees of Chester Bricklayers
Local No. 12 Welfare Fund, Francis
Gilmore, William J. Whelan.

No. 16622.

United States Court of Appeals Third Circuit.

Argued Nov. 8, 1967,
Decided Jan. 4, 1968.

John J. O'Brien, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa. (Nicholas G. Petrella, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellants.

Geoffrey J. Cunniff, Bala Cynwyd, Pa. (Wilderman, Markowitz & Kirschner, Richard Kirschner, Philadelphia, Pa., on the brief), for appellees.

Before STALEY, Chief Judge, and KALODNER and FORMAN, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM:

1

The appellant plaintiffs, members of Bricklayers Local No. 12, Chester, Pa., filed a Complaint in the District Court for a declaratory judgment, alleging that the defendant appellees, trustees of a jointly administered health and welfare fund ('Fund') acted improperly in refusing to accept payments into the Fund from non-member, non-subscribing employers, and in setting certain requirements for eligibility for benefits. The Complaint based jurisdiction on the Welfare and Pension Plans Disclosure Act, as amended.1

2

The District Court dismissed the Complaint for lack of jurisdiction, and alternatively, for failure of the Complaint to state a claim upon which relief could be granted.

3

On review of the record we find no error. The Order of the District Court dismissing the Complaint will be affirmed for the reasons so well-stated by Judge Luongo in his Opinion reported at 265 F. Supp. 348 (1967).

1

29 U.S.C.A. 308(c)

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer