[fol. 437] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [Title Omitted] ORDER-Filed April 10, 1952 This cause came on to be heard on April 9, 1952, and the Court after hearing the arguments of counsel for the parties and being of the opinion that plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order should be denied, it is hereby Ordered that plaintiffs' application for a temporary restraining order be, and the same hereby is, denied. Alexander Holtzoff, United States District Judge. Dated this, the 10th day of April, 1952. (N) [fol. 438] Opposition to motion for a preliminary injunction, attachments and affidavits in support (omitted in printing). [fol. 263] [File endorsement omitted] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Civil Action No. 1624-52 UNITED STATES STEEL COMPANY, 525 William Penn Place, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Plaintiff, V. CHARLES SAWYER, Department of Commerce, Washington, D. C., Defendant [fol. 263] Complaint for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief (Omitted in printing). [fol. 274a] Exhibit A. Telegram from Charles Sawyer (Copy) (Omitted in printing). [fol. 274b] Exhibit B. Order No. 1 (Copy) (Omitted in printing). [fol. 274c] Exhibit C. Executive Order (Copy) (Omitted in printing). [fol. 275] Motion for preliminary injunction (Omitted in printing). [fol. 277] Points and authorities in support of motion (Omitted in printing). [fol. 279] Amendment No. 1 to complaint (Omitted in printing). [fol. 281] [File endorsement omitted] NOTICE OF SPECIAL APPEARANCE-Filed April 24, 1952 The defendant, appearing specially through his undersigned attorneys, respectfully represents to this Court as follows: 1. The above-entitled case is one of 10 suits involving 17 plaintiffs which have been instituted in this Court against this defendant challenging the Government possession of steel company plants and facilities pursuant to Executive Order 10340, 17 F.R. 3139. 2. Motions for preliminary injunctions have been filed by the plaintiffs in each case. 3. In order to expedite the hearings of these motions and to avoid multiple hearings, the defendant, waiving his rights under Rule 9 of this Court's Rules of Procedure, has consented to a consolidated hearing on April 24, 1952 of all said motions. He has accordingly filed in this Court, or will file prior to the date of hearing, in each case a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motions for preliminary injunctions despite the fact that the five day period provided for by this Court's rules has not elapsed in every case. 4. The instant plaintiff has instituted 2 suits against this defendant and filed a motion for preliminary injunction in each of these suits. In the above-entitled case, plaintiff has served the defendant with a 20-day summons; in Civil No. 1625-52, the plaintiff has served the defendant with a 60-day summons. 5. The defendant believes that the service upon him of a 20-day summons in the instant case is invalid under Rule [fols. 282-403] 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The defendant wishes to make it clear that he, by appearing to oppose the motions for preliminary injunctions at a consolidated hearing, is not thereby waiving his right to file a motion to quash the return of service in the instant suit. Wherefore the defendant respectfully states that the filing of his memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the instant motion for preliminary injunction does not constitute a general appearance, and that the defendant will, in due course, promptly move to quash the return of service in the instant case. Holmes Baldridge, Assistant Attorney General. Marvin C. Taylor, Samuel D. Slade, Benjamin Forman, Herman Marcuse, Attorneys, Department of Justice. [fol. 283] Opposition to motion for a preliminary injunction, attachments, and affidavits in support (Copies) (Omitted in printing). [fol. 369] Affidavit of John A. Stephens (Omitted in printing). [fol. 386] Affidavit of Wilbur L. Lohrentz (Omitted in printing). [fol. 395] Affidavit of Lewis M. Parsons (Omitted in printing). [fols. 404-415] [File endorsement omitted] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MOTION TO DISMISS OR, IN LIEU THEREOF, TO QUASH THE RETURN OF SERVICE OF SUMMONS-Filed April 29, 1952 The defendant, appearing specially through his undersigned attorneys, moves the Court to dismiss the action, or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service of summons on the ground that the defendant is entitled under Rule 12(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to a period of sixty days after the service upon him of the complaint in which to answer or otherwise plead. Holmes Baldridge, Assistant Attorney General, [fol. 411] Motion to withdraw verbal amendment and to proceed on the basis of motion for preliminary injunctiongranted (Omitted in printing). [fol. 712] Civil No. 1539-52 No. 11,408 REPUBLIC STEEL CORPORATION, A New Jersey Corporation with Principal Offices in Republic Building, Cleveland, Ohio V. CHARLES SAWYER, Weschester Apartments, Washington, D. C. [fol. 712] Complaint for injunction and for a declaratory judgment and other relief (Omitted in printing). [fol. 719] Affidavit of John M. Schlendorf (Omitted in printing). [fol. 723] Summons and service (Omitted in printing). [fol. 725] Motion for preliminary injunction (Omitted in printing). [fol. 727] Memorandum of points and authorities (Omitted in printing). [fol. 728] IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [File endorsement omitted] MOTION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER-Filed April 9, 1952 Comes now the plaintiff, Republic Steel Corporation, by its attorneys below named, and moves the Court, upon the basis of the affidavit of John M. Schlendorf, filed herein, for a temporary restraining order without notice to the defendant, because it clearly appears from specific facts shown by said affidavit that immediate and irreparable injury, loss and damage will result to plaintiff from the unlawful acts of the defendant before notice can be served and a hearing had thereon, restraining said defendant (a) From taking any steps or continuing to take any steps whatsoever to effectuate and carry out the provisions of the Executive Order issued April 8, 1952, by the President of the United States insofar as said Executive Order is intended to apply to the plaintiff herein, its officers, agents, and the control and management of its properties. (b) From molesting or interfering with plaintiff or doing any act or thing which would prevent or tend to prevent [fol. 729] the plaintiff, its officers, agents and employees from operating the plaintiff's said properties for its own account. (c) From in any respect changing the wages or other terms or conditions of employment in effect at the properties of the plaintiff at the time of issuance of said Executive Order. |