AARON v. FORD, BACON DAVIS, INC., 174 F.2d 730 (8th Cir. 1949)


No. 13660.United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.
April 12, 1949. Writ of Certiorari Granted June 27, 1949. See 69 S.Ct. 1533.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas; Harry J. Lemley, Judge.

Action by Julia Rhoda Aaron and all other plaintiffs and intervenors listed in the complaints and interventions in the District Court in a civil action No. L.R. 1584 Consolidated, against Ford, Bacon Davis, Inc., for overtime compensation, liquidated damages and attorney’s fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act. From a judgment for defendant, the plaintiffs appeal.

Judgment affirmed.

June P. Wooten, Cooper Jacoway, Gerland P. Patten, C.H. Earl, Talley Owen, Lee Cazort, Jr. and Josh McHughes, all of Little Rock, Ark., for appellants.

Owens, Ehrman McHaney and John M. Lofton, Jr., all of Little Rock, Ark., for appellee.

William S. Tyson, Sol., Bessie Margolin, Asst. Sol., and Wm. A. Lowe and E. Gerald Lamboley, Attys., Dept. of Labor, all of Washington, D.C., and Reid Williams, of Kansas City, Mo., amici curiae.


COLLET, Circuit Judge.

This action constitutes a consolidation of seven separate actions against the defendant, Ford, Bacon Davis, Inc., filed by more than 1800 of its employees in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas claiming in excess of one million dollars in overtime compensation, liquidated damages, and attorney fees under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938.[1]
Ford, Bacon Davis, Inc., operated the Government-owned Arkansas Ordnance Plant in Pulaski County, Arkansas, under a cost-plus-a-fixed-fee contract with the Government for the production of munitions of war for Government use in World War II. This consolidated cause was submitted to the District Court on motion for summary judgment. At the hearing on that motion it was stipulated that the motion raised no

Page 731

disputed issues of fact. The motion was sustained. The District Court filed as its memorandum opinion in this case its opinion in the previously determined similar case, Barksdale v. Ford, Bacon Davis, Inc., reported in 70 F. Supp. 690. Many of the same issues were presented to the trial court in this case as were presented in the trial court in United States Cartridge Co. v. Powell et al., 8 Cir., 174 F.2d 718. On the appeal in this case the same determinative questions were presented in this court as were presented on appeal in the Powell case. This case, like the Powell case, was held under submission awaiting a decision of the case of Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co. by the Supreme Court. Upon the remand of Kennedy v. Silas Mason Co., 334 U.S. 249, 68 S.Ct. 1031, the previous submission of this case was set aside and this cause was set for rehearing and reargument before this Court en banc with the Powell case. The Powell case has, as indicated above, been decided by our opinion filed today. The substantive issues are the same in this and the Powell case. Our opinion in the Powell case is therefore controlling here. For the reasons stated in that opinion, the order of the District Court dismissing plaintiffs’ complaints is affirmed.

[1] 29 U.S.C.A. § 201 et seq.