DANIEL G. GELLERT, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
EASTERN AIRLINES, INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION, FRANK BORMAN, WILLIAM BELL AND THOMAS BUTTION, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The district court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the preemption issue or state law claims, thus its rulings on those matters were void.
Plaintiff sued defendants for common law torts alleging retaliatory conduct after his testimony before the National Safety Transportation Board. The d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Civil Conspiracy cases and more on FLexlaw
GODBOLD, Chief Judge:
Plaintiff-appellant Gellert filed suit in the Southern District of Florida alleging common law torts of fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, tortious interference with contract rights and civil conspiracy. This is the fourth action brought by Gellert alleging that defendants-appellees, Eastern Air Lines and several of its officers, engaged in a continuing course of retaliatory conduct against Gellert as a result of his testimony before the National Safety Transportation Board regarding the crash in 1972 of Eastern Flight 402.
The district court dismissed the case on the ground that all claims asserted were within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Air Line Pilot’s System Board of Adjustment. As an alternative holding respecting count 5, which alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, the court held that the count failed to state a claim for relief under Florida law, citing Gellert v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3 DCA 1979).
In this appeal Gellert urges first that the district judge denied him his Seventh Amendment right of trial by jury in ruling that his only redress was within the System Board, and, second, that his claims are valid tort actions not preempted by the Railway Labor Act. Eastern urges us to affirm the holding that all claims are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the System Board, thereby hopefully bringing to an end its differences with Gellert. The difficulty with both arguments is that the district court was wholly without jurisdiction in this case. Gellert did not allege diversity of citizenship or federal question jurisdiction, and, necessarily, there was no pendent jurisdiction of any state claim. Thus the district court was without power to adjudicate the preemption issue and without power to hold that count 5 stated no Cause of action under Florida law.
Should Gellert bring a suit in a court having jurisdiction that court can examine his allegations under the test of Farmer v. Carpenters, 430 U.S. 290, 97 S.Ct. 1056, 51 L.Ed.2d 338 (1977) to determine whether the claims asserted have been preempted.
The order of the district court is VACATED. The judgment of dismissal is AFFIRMED.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Daniels v. Twin Oaks Nursing Home, 692 F.2d 1321 (11th Cir. 1982)…16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966); Jackson v. Stinchcomb, 635 F. 2d 462, 470 (5th Cir.1981). If a substantial federal claim is not presented, the court does not have pendent jurisdiction to hear a related state claim. See also Gellert v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 688 F. 2d 723 (11th Cir.1982). A claim is insubstantial if it lacks merit or if prior decisions clearly foreclose the matter. See Jackson v. Stinehcomb, supra, at 471; Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. United States, 519 F. 2d 1184, 1194 n. 26 (5th Cir.1975). The…
-
Lykins v. Pointer Inc., 725 F.2d 645 (11th Cir. 1984)…jurisdictional issue. Of course, if the court concludes that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b) and 2675, the want of a federal claim would render pendent party jurisdiction impossible. Gellert v. Eastern Airlines, Inc., 688 F. 2d 723, 724 (11th Cir. 1982). Our holding here is narrow. We conclude only that there are no constitutional or statutory barriers to the exercise of pendent party jurisdiction beyond the normal requirements of Gibbs when jurisdiction over the federal clai…
Authorities Cited
- Farmer v. United Bhd. OF Carpenters & Joiners OF Am., 430 U.S. 290 (U.S. 1977)
- Gellert v. E. AIR Lines, Inc., 370 So. 2d 802 (Fla. 3d DCA 1979)