William Greenblatt v. Delta Plumbing & Heating Corp.
68 F.3d 561 | Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit | 1995
What This Case Means for Subcontractors
A plumbing union and joint industry board sued Delta Plumbing and its surety bond company (New York Surety) in federal court over a state law surety bond claim. The district court awarded $50,638.86 plus interest. On appeal, the Second Circuit reversed because federal courts don't have jurisdiction over state law surety bond claims unless they involve federal law or are preempted by labor laws like ERISA or LMRA. This matters to subcontractors because it clarifies where surety bond disputes must be filed—state court, not federal court.
Key Takeaways
- •Surety bond claims based on state law belong in state court, not federal court, unless federal law or labor statutes apply
- •Don't assume federal courts will hear your surety bond dispute—check whether your claim involves federal law or labor law preemption first
- •If your surety bond claim is purely a state law matter, file in state court to avoid jurisdictional dismissals and delays
District court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over state law surety bond claim.
Frequently Asked Question
Can I sue my surety bond company in federal court?
Not if your claim is based solely on state law. Federal courts only have jurisdiction over surety bond claims involving federal law or labor law preemption. For state law surety disputes, file in state court instead. Check your claim's legal basis before choosing a court.
Related Cases
Luis E. Garcia, M.D. v. Copenhaver, Bell & Associates, m.d.'s, P.A., Defendant-Third Party St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, Third Party
Whether a defendant qualifies as an 'employer' under ADEA is a substantive element of the plaintiff's claim, not merely a jurisdictional question, and must be decided by a jury rather than dismissed by the judge under Rule 12(b)(1).
Intergen N v. v. Grina
A party cannot be compelled to arbitrate disputes unless it has agreed to do so; InterGen, a non-signatory to the arbitration agreements, is not bound by arbitration clauses in contracts signed by other parties.
Travis County v. Pelzel & Associates, Inc.
Local Government Code § 89.004's presentment requirement is a condition precedent to suit, not a waiver of sovereign immunity, and a county does not waive immunity by withholding contract payments under liquidated damages clauses.
Hamon Contractors, Inc. v. Carter & Burgess, Inc.
The economic loss rule bars post-contractual fraud claims when the alleged fraud arises from duties implicated by a party's performance of contractual terms, even where the fraud is intentional.
Robert Lilley, Cross-Appellee v. Btm Corporation, Cross-Appellant
Lilley was properly determined to be an employee under the ADEA and Elliott-Larsen Act, and the court affirmed his retaliatory discharge claim but reversed the denial of prejudgment interest and remanded for recomputation of costs.
County Commissioners v. J. Roland Dashiell & Sons, Inc.
An express written contract bars quasi-contractual claims for unjust enrichment when the contract addresses the subject matter of the claim.