This аction for a declaratory judgment is brought by sixteen individuals, -members of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America (hereinafter called Carpenters), on behalf of themselves and others similarly situated, to determine and to protect against alleged conspiracy their rights under certain agreemеnts entered into between the motion picture studios, Carpenters, the International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving Picture Operators of the United States and Canada (hereinafter called Stagehands), and others. The defendant studios and Stagehands have moved to dismiss on the grounds that: (1) This court lаcks jurisdiction; (2) the court should, in the proper exercise of its discretion, decline to assume jurisdiction; and (3) the complaint fails to state a claim upon whiсh relief can be granted.
The forty-eight page complaint when analyzed presents nothing more or less than a request that this court interpret a private contract or agreement allocating certain work on stage sets in the moving picture industry. As stated by counsel in oral argument, the difference between the parties is simply who is “to drive the nails.” The serious question before the court is whether this court has jurisdiction in the absenci of diversity of citizenship.
*1010 Thus, we have an action in which private individuals ask this court to construe their rights under a contract negotiated on their behalf by a labor union, and to protect such rights from interference with оr invasion by other persons acting individually or in conspiracy with each other. Since this is a court of limited jurisdiction, every case brought here must fall within the terms of a рrovision of some statute of the United States. Plaintiffs allege (paragraph VIII) :
“Jurisdiction of this Court is vested by virtue of Section 400, Title 28, United States Code Annotated; Section 41(1), 41(8), 41(12), and 41(14), Title 28, United States Code Annotated; Section 729, Title 28, United States Code Annotated; Sections 43 and 47(3), Title 8, United States Code Annotated; Section 157, Title 29, United States Codе Annotated; and the Constitution of the United States, Amend-’ ments V and XIV.”
If the case does not fall within the terms of one or more of these statutes or amendments to the Constitutiоn, the court must dismiss the action for want' of jurisdiction.
28 United States Code Annotated § 41(12) and 8 United States Code Annotated § 47(3) give the District Courts jurisdiction in suits
for damages
on account of injury to the рlaintiff’s person or property, or the deprivation of any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States by any act done in furtherance of a consрiracy. Under 28 United States Code Annotated § 41(12), damages are an essential part of the judgment, and damages will vary from person to person. Their rights are severаl, and a judgment in this action will not bind the parties not before the court. Pentland v. Dravo Corp., 3 Cir.,
Disregarding the limitations of said section on account of the requirement of damages, this court would still be without jurisdiction, since these statutes were passed to prоtect individuals from violations of their rights by State action, and none is here alleged. Love v. Chandler, 8 Cir.,
28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1) and 8 U.S.C. A. § 43 both provide for redress for deprivation of rights under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage of any State or Territory, in exprеss terms. It is not alleged that the defendants are acting under color of any State law, etc., so these sections cannot act to establish jurisdiction in this court. Allen v. Corsano, D.C.,
28 U.S.C.A. § 729 merely establishes the prоcedure to be followed by the federal courts in certain classes of cases. This section has reference not to the extent or scope of jurisdiction, nor to the rules of decision, but to the forms of procedure and remedy. In re Stupp, 23 Fed. Cas. No. 13,563, p. 296; United States v. Reid,
The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitutiоn are designed to protect the individual from invasion of his rights, privileges and immunities by the federal and the State governments respectively. Corrigan v. Buckley,
28 U.S.C.A. § 41(8) confers jurisdiction on the District Courts of the United States in “all suits and proceedings arising under any law regulating commerce,” without regard to the jurisdictional аmount requirement of 28 U.S.C.A. § 41(1). Since more than $3,000 is involved in this action, Section 41(8) will not establish jurisdiction in this court if it cannot be established under Section 41(1), which grants jurisdiction in all suits where thе matter in controversy exceeds $3,000 and “arises under the Constitution of laws of the United States.”
It is not enough that the dispute should merely
affect
commerce to bring it within the scope of Section 41(8) or Section 41(1). Dеlaware, Lackawanna & Western R. v. Slocum, D.C.,
In Gully v. First National Bank,
“To bring a case within the statute, a right or immunity created by the Constitution or laws of the United States must be an element, and an essential onе, of the plaintiff’s cause of action. * * * The right or immunity must be such that it will be supported if the Constitution or laws of the United States are given one construction or effeсt, and defeated if they receive another.”
Plaintiffs do not claim any violation of the right to bargain collectively under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C.A. § 157, nor the right to contract for employment, nor the right to contract collectively for employment. Plaintiffs assert that the right to work at one’s chosen vocаtion within the terms of a contract negotiated under federal law, the National Labor Relations Act, has been violated. The bare right to work is not a right protected by federal law. Love v. United States, 8 Cir.
From the mere fact that a right was established by federal law, it does not follow that all litigation growing therefrom arises under thе laws of the United States. Actions growing from the issue of federal land grants do not arise “under the laws of the United States.” Shoshone Mining Co. v. Rutter,
The only important issue in the case at bar is the interpretation of a contract-. The meaning of this contract is not dependent on the National Labor Relatiоns Act, whether it owes its existence to that Act or not. A decision by this court that the Carpenters or the Stagehands, as the case may be, have the right to construсt stage sets would not involve consideration of the validity, construction, or effect of the Act. The decision would be based purely and simply upon contractual principles. Therefore, this suit does not arise under the Constitution or laws of the United States, and this court lacks jurisdiction.
In this memorandum opinion, this court has not attempted to cover the broad *1012 field of law cited in over two hundred and twenty-five cases referred to in two hundred pages of briefs. To do so would require the writing of a treatise on various phases of the subject of jurisdiction of the United States District Courts in labor disputes.
I have only attempted to outline my reasons for my conсlusion that this court lacks jurisdiction. In view of my conclusion, it is unnecessary to pass upon the other questions raised by the various motions.
The above entitled action is hereby ordered dismissed for want of jurisdiction.