Rea Express, Inc., on Its Own Behalf & on Behalf of Certain of Its Former Employees Now Retired v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 554 F.2d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1977). · Go Syfert
Rea Express, Inc., on Its Own Behalf & on Behalf of Certain of Its Former Employees Now Retired v. The Travelers Ins. Co., 554 F.2d 1200 (D.C. Cir. 1977). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
15 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 11 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Henok Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (cadc, 2014-12-30)
Top citers, strongest first. 6 distinct citers. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Henok Araya v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.
D.C. Cir. · 2014 · confidence medium
Co., 554 F.2d 1200, 1201 (D.C.Cir.1977) (per curiam) (altering district court judgment so as to allow plaintiffs to file in state court).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Summit National Life Ins. v. Cargill, Inc.
E.D. Pa. · 1992 · confidence medium
Co., 406 F.Supp. 1389, 1394 (D.D.C.1976), aff'd. in part and modified in part, 554 F.2d 1200, 1201 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 182 , 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977) (affirming dismissal of federal antitrust claims under Bangor Punta).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fox v. Custis
4th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 772-78 (D.C.Cir.1982); Rice v. President and Fellows, 663 F.2d 336, 339 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1976 , 72 L.Ed.2d 444 (1982); REA Express, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 554 F.2d 1200,1201 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 182 , 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Fox v. Custis
4th Cir. · 1983 · confidence medium
See Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Metzger, 680 F.2d 768, 772-78 (D.C.Cir.1982); Rice v. President and Fellows, 663 F.2d 336, 339 (1st Cir.1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 928 , 102 S.Ct. 1976 , 72 L.Ed.2d 444 (1982); REA Express, Inc. v. Travelers Insurance Co., 554 F.2d 1200, 1201 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 182 , 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Financial General Bankshares, Inc. v. Eugene J. Metzger, Financial General Bankshares, Inc., Cross-Appellant v. Eugene J. Metzger
D.C. Cir. · 1982 · confidence medium
Co., 554 F.2d 1200, 1201 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 182 , 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977), the District Court had granted summary judgment for the defendant on the federal antitrust claims.
cited Cited "see" Walsh v. International Precious Metals Corp.
D. Utah · 1981 · signal: see · confidence high
See REA Express v. Travelers Insurance Co., 554 F.2d 1200 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 858 , 98 S.Ct. 182 , 54 L.Ed.2d 131 (1977); Fischer v. Rosenthal & Co., 481 F.Supp. at 57 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
REA EXPRESS, INC., on Its Own Behalf and on Behalf of Certain of Its Former Employees Now Retired, Appellant,
v.
the TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY Et Al.
76-1450.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Apr 21, 1977.
554 F.2d 1200
1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13734
Arthur M. Wisehart, New York City, with whom S. Chesterfield Oppenheim, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellant. Frederic L. Wood, Washington, D. C., also entered an appearance for appellant., Edwin M. Zimmerman, Washington, D. C., with whom William D. Iverson, Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for railroad appellees The Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. et aL; also argued on behalf of all other appellees., Michael M. Maney, William Piel, Jr., and Mark I. Fishman, New York City, were on the brief for appellee The Travelers Ins. Co., Francis M. Shea, Richard T. Conway, and John D. Aldoek, Washington, D. C., were on the brief for appellees National Railway Labor Conference and Eastern Carriers Conference Committee.
Bazelon, Wright, Robb.
Cited by 15 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The background and facts relating to this case are adequately stated in the opinion of the District Court, see REA Express, Inc. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 406 F.Supp. 1389 (D.D.C.1976), so we shall not repeat them here. We agree with, that opinion insofar as it holds that appellant’s federal claims are foreclosed by Bangor Punta Operations, Inc. v. Bangor & Aroostook R. Co., 417 U.S. 703, 94 S.Ct. 2578, 41 L.Ed.2d 418 (1974). Consequently, we affirm that part of the District Court’s judgment which dismissed those claims with prejudice.

The District Court also dismissed appellant’s pendent state claims with prejudice on the basis that Delaware law would govern and that Delaware precedents conformed to the doctrine adopted in Bangor Punta. See 406 F.Supp. at 1394. However, the issues involved in this case are novel and the trial court found them “troubling.” Id. at 1395. In these circumstances, the admonition of the Supreme Court in United Mine Workers v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 86 S.Ct. 1130, 16 L.Ed.2d 218 (1966), should have been followed:

Needless decisions.of state law should be avoided both as a matter of comity and to promote justice between the parties, by procuring for them a surer-footed reading of applicable law. Certainly, if the federal claims are dismissed before trial, even though not insubstantial in a jurisdictional sense, the state claims should be dismissed as well.

Id. at 726, 86 S.Ct. at 1139 (footnotes omitted). Following Gibbs, we affirm the dismissal of appellant’s state claims, but require their dismissal to be without prejudice. [1]

It is our view that the insurance claims [2] of former employees of appellant are not part of this litigation, so nothing herein or in the District Court’s opinion should be read as affecting those claims. Nor are the claims of creditors of the bankrupt appellant before this court. [3] Consequently any claims they may have against appellees herein also remain unaffected by our judgment and the judgment of the District Court.

So ordered.

1

. Appellant agrees that the state claims should be dismissed if we affirm the District Court’s disposition of the federal claims. It only contests the dismissal with prejudice.

2

. See 406 F.Supp. at 1392 & 1395.