finding no federal jurisdiction even though complaint alleged a claim under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C. § 1602, because “the alleged statutory violation purported] to add to the Union’s complaint nothing but a predicate for federal jurisdiction”
How later courts described this case
- finding no federal jurisdiction even though complaint alleged a claim under the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964, 49 U.S.C. § 1602, because “the alleged statutory violation purported] to add to the Union’s complaint nothing but a predicate for federal jurisdiction”
- recognizing the Supreme Court’s articulation of the new test and stating that the sole question now is whether there is “clear evidence that Congress intended to provide such a remedy”
- holding that if "clear evidence of affirmative congressional intent is lacking, we cannot infer that Congress has legislated silently."
- “In order for us to infer a private right of action, or federal jurisdiction, we must have before us clear evidence that Congress intended to provide such a remedy_”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
VANCE, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
The panel majority has decided that federal courts lack subject matter jurisdiction over a suit to enforce the provisions of a labor protective agreement signed by appellant as a condition to the receipt of federal funds under section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transit Act, 49 U.S.C. § 1609 (c). The majority reaches this decision despite the existence of persuasive authority from the five other circuits that have considered this question and reached the opposite conclusion. See Division 587, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle, 663 F.2d 875 (9th Cir. 1981); Local Division 1285, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Jackson Transit Authority, 650 F.2d 1379 (6th Cir.), cert. granted, - U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 632 , 70 L.Ed.2d 613 (1981); Division 1235, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Metropolitan Transit Authority, 650 F.2d 1389 (6th Cir. 1981); Local Division No. 714, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Greater Portland Transit District, 589 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1978); Local Division 519, Amalgamated Transit Union v. LaCrosse Municipal Transit Utility, 585 F.2d 1340 (7th Cir. 1978); Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Kansas City Area Transportation Authority, 582 F.2d 444 (8th Cir. 1978). These courts have each found that a suit to enforce a section 13(c) agreement is a suit that “arises under” federal law and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of the federal courts. They have also found that a union which brings such a suit states a federal cause of action. 1
This newborn split between the circuits may be of short duration. The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the Jackson Transit Authority case and presumably will resolve the issue. In the meanwhile, we are bound by extant Supreme Court authority. In International Association of Machinists v. Central Airlines, Inc., 372 U.S. 682 , 83 S.Ct. 956 , 10 L.Ed.2d 67 (1963), the Supreme Court held that a suit to enforce a private agreement mandated by federal law may be brought in federal court. The five other circuits have cited Central Airlines as authority for finding jurisdiction here, and nothing in the majority opinion persuades me otherwise.
Based on the reasoning of the other circuits, I would also find that the union in this case stated a federal cause of action and that the district court did not abuse its discretion by issuing an injunction.
. Unlike the panel majority, each of five other circuits has addressed the question of subject matter jurisdiction before considering the existence of an implied cause of action under section 13(c). That order of consideration is mandated by Supreme Court precedent, Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682-83 , 66 S.Ct. 773, 776 , 90 L.Ed. 939 (1946). See, e.g., Division 1287, Amalgamated Transit Union v. Kansas City Area Transp. Auth., 582 F.2d 444, 449 (8th Cir. 1978) (“The question of whether a particular case is one that ‘arises under’ the Constitution or laws of the United States ... is entirely separate and distinct from the question of whether the plaintiff’s complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted .... ”).