Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

S.D. New York

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

3 F.R.D. 175, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1826

District Court, S.D. New York·Decided October 1, 1942·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

COXE, District Judge.

It cannot be said at this time that the challenged allegations of the complaint have no bearing on the subject matter of the action. That is a question which should properly be left to the trial judge to determine when evidence is offered. Motions to strike are not favored, and I cannot see that the defendants will in any way be prejudiced by allowing the allegations to stand.

The motion of the defendants to strike is denied.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

COXE, District Judge.

It cannot be said at this time that the challenged allegations of the complaint have no bearing on the subject matter of the action. That is a question which should properly be left to the trial judge to determine when evidence is offered. Motions to strike are not favored, and I cannot see that the defendants will in any way be prejudiced by allowing the allegations to stand.

The motion of the defendants to strike is denied.

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc., 3 F.R.D. 175, 1942 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1826 (S.D.N.Y. 1942).

Pincite

3 F.R.D. 175 (Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related