Case Law Kline v. Security Guards, Inc.

Kline v. Security Guards, Inc.

Document Cited Authorities (33) Cited in (219) Related

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, 2003 WL 22271672, Linda K. Caracappa, J Joseph F. Roda (Argued), Roda & Nast, Lancaster, PA, for Daulph Kline, et al. Appellants in No. 03-3404 Cross Appellees in Nos. 03-3610 and 03-3620.

Scott L. Vernick, Joshua Horn (Argued), Emil J. Kiehne, Fox Rothschild, Philadelphia, PA, for Security Guards, Inc. Appellant in No. 03-3610 Cross Appellee in No. 03-3404.

Scott F. Cooper (Argued), Scott A. Mayer, Blank Rome, Philadelphia, PA, for Dana Corporation Appellant in No. 03-3620 Cross Appellee in No. 03-3404.

Before AMBRO, ALDISERT and STAPLETON, Circuit Judges.

STAPLETON, Circuit Judge.

Daulph Kline and Terry Kline brought suit in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks County, in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, against Dana Corporation ("Dana"), Security Guards, Inc. ("SGI"), and Radio Maintenance, Inc. ("RMI"; collectively, the "Defendants") asserting numerous claims arising under Pennsylvania law. Defendants thereafter removed the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, contending that Appellants' claims were completely preempted by § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act ("LMRA"), 29 U.S.C. § 185. RMI was ultimately dismissed as a party and judgment was entered in favor of Dana and SGI. This appeal followed. Because we conclude that the District Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction over any of the state law claims asserted in the complaint, we will vacate the judgment and remand to the District Court with instructions to return this case to the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas.

I.

This case arises out of Dana's alleged surveillance of its hourly employees at one of its facilities in Reading, Pennsylvania. Dana, a Virginia corporation, is a manufacturer of automobile and truck assembly components. During the relevant period, its hourly employees working at the facility were represented by the United Steel Workers of America, Local 3733 (the "Union") and were subject to a Collective Bargaining Agreement ("CBA") between Dana and the Union.

On September 28, 1998, Dana installed an audio and video surveillance system in an entryway at its Reading facility. The system was allegedly purchased from, and installed by, RMI. It consisted of two cameras with built-in microphones, a monitor with a built-in speaker, and a twenty-four hour video cassette recorder. The system enabled Dana to monitor the entryway, which was the location at which its hourly employees were required to "punch-in." The cameras automatically sent video and audio signals to the monitor, which was located in a guard booth adjacent to the entryway. The guard booth was operated by employees of SGI, a Pennsylvania corporation, which had contracted with Dana since 1989 to provide it with security services. The SGI guards operating the booth reported to, and were supervised by, Dana managers.

Approximately one week after installation of the system, two hourly employees at the Reading facility, Terry and Daulph Kline, learned from certain SGI guards operating the guard booth that the surveillance system had the capacity to transmit to the monitor oral communications taking place in the entryway. The Klines then reported this fact to their Union representatives. Over the course of the following weeks, the Union made inquiries of Dana's management concerning its use of the surveillance system. These inquiries resulted in the removal of the system on October 29, 1998.

Terry and Daulph Kline filed a complaint against Defendants in the Court of Common Pleas of Berks...

5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2009
Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
"...state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.'" Kline v. Security Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 252 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425). "Once an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Spear v. Fenkell
"...700 A.2d 979, 987-88 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citing Smith v. Wagner, 588 A.2d 1308, 1311-12 (Pa. Super 1991)); see also Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 262 (3d Cir. 2004). Strickland also requires that "[p]roof of malice or an intent to injure is essential to the proof of a conspiracy...."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2017
Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist.
"...652B, cmt. b). This "cause of action also requires that the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Kline v. Security Guards, Inc. , 386 F.3d 246, 260 (3d Cir. 2004). In addition, the intrusion must "cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibili..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.
"...be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law"); Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 256 (3d Cir. 2004) (identifying "dispositive question [in pre-emption analysis] is whether Appellants’ state claims require an interpretat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2020
Suniaga v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist.
"...for an unlawful purpose; (2) an overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose; and (3) actual legal damage." Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting McGuire v. Shubert, 722 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) ). Additionally, "[p]roof of malice, i.e., an ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial
2 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 66-4, July 2006 – 2006
Collective and Individual Approaches to Protecting Employee Privacy: The Experience with Workplace Drug Testing
"...one of the areas in which individual employee claims are "almost always preempted." Id. at 607. [72] See Kline v. Security Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2004); Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001). [73] Steven L. Willborn, Consenting Employees: Workpla..."
Document | Article 6.6 Fraud In the Inducement and Negligent Misrepresentation*
§ 6.6.4.8 NLRA PREEMPTION.
"...at the time of these statements was to liquidate the company. --------Notes:[76] 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.[77] Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (2004) (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985)).[78] 170 F.3d 367, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Casselli v. City ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Experience vLex's unparalleled legal AI

Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2 books and journal articles
Document | Núm. 66-4, July 2006 – 2006
Collective and Individual Approaches to Protecting Employee Privacy: The Experience with Workplace Drug Testing
"...one of the areas in which individual employee claims are "almost always preempted." Id. at 607. [72] See Kline v. Security Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (3d Cir. 2004); Cramer v. Consolidated Freightways Inc., 255 F.3d 683 (9th Cir. 2001). [73] Steven L. Willborn, Consenting Employees: Workpla..."
Document | Article 6.6 Fraud In the Inducement and Negligent Misrepresentation*
§ 6.6.4.8 NLRA PREEMPTION.
"...at the time of these statements was to liquidate the company. --------Notes:[76] 29 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.[77] Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246 (2004) (quoting Allis-Chalmers Corp. v. Lueck, 471 U.S. 202, 220 (1985)).[78] 170 F.3d 367, 373-74 (3d Cir. 1999); see also Casselli v. City ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
5 cases
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2009
Sullivan v. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.
"...state common-law complaint into one stating a federal claim for purposes of the well-pleaded complaint rule.'" Kline v. Security Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 252 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Caterpillar, 482 U.S. at 393, 107 S.Ct. 2425). "Once an area of state law has been completely pre-empted, ..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2016
Spear v. Fenkell
"...700 A.2d 979, 987-88 (Pa. Super. 1997) (citing Smith v. Wagner, 588 A.2d 1308, 1311-12 (Pa. Super 1991)); see also Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 262 (3d Cir. 2004). Strickland also requires that "[p]roof of malice or an intent to injure is essential to the proof of a conspiracy...."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2017
Doe v. Boyertown Area Sch. Dist.
"...652B, cmt. b). This "cause of action also requires that the plaintiff has a reasonable expectation of privacy." Kline v. Security Guards, Inc. , 386 F.3d 246, 260 (3d Cir. 2004). In addition, the intrusion must "cause mental suffering, shame, or humiliation to a person of ordinary sensibili..."
Document | U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey – 2021
Medley v. Atl. Exposition Servs., Inc.
"...be read broadly to pre-empt nonnegotiable rights conferred on individual employees as a matter of state law"); Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 256 (3d Cir. 2004) (identifying "dispositive question [in pre-emption analysis] is whether Appellants’ state claims require an interpretat..."
Document | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania – 2020
Suniaga v. Downingtown Area Sch. Dist.
"...for an unlawful purpose; (2) an overt act done in pursuance of the common purpose; and (3) actual legal damage." Kline v. Sec. Guards, Inc., 386 F.3d 246, 262 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting McGuire v. Shubert, 722 A.2d 1087, 1092 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1998) ). Additionally, "[p]roof of malice, i.e., an ..."

Try vLex and Vincent AI for free

Start a free trial

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex