Clark v. Springfield City Water Co.

W.D. Missouri

Clark v. Springfield City Water Co.

14 F.R.D. 504, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4567

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri

DecidedSeptember 8, 1953

DocketNo. 1214

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 14 F.R.D. 504 (Clark v. Springfield City Water Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. Missouri primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clark v. Springfield City Water Co., 14 F.R.D. 504, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4567 (W.D. Mo. 1953).

Pincite

Opinion

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The motion for costs in the above cause should be sustained. The motion to separate the petition of the several plaintiffs into separate counts should be denied. Paragraph (b) of Rule 10, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides for separate statements where each claim is “founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence * * In this case the several plaintiffs plead the identical occurrence at the same time. The prayer supports the claim of each plaintiff and for that reason there is no confusion. The motion to separate, therefore, should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.

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

REEVES, Chief Judge.

The motion for costs in the above cause should be sustained. The motion to separate the petition of the several plaintiffs into separate counts should be denied. Paragraph (b) of Rule 10, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides for separate statements where each claim is “founded upon a separate transaction or occurrence * * In this case the several plaintiffs plead the identical occurrence at the same time. The prayer supports the claim of each plaintiff and for that reason there is no confusion. The motion to separate, therefore, should be overruled, and it will be so ordered.

Sergio Bautista Miguel Rodriguez Jose Soto Manuel Fernandez Alice Farnham Alfredo Figueroa Jose Luis Alejo Mario Mejia Guadalupe Cedillo Hector Reyes Marcos Martinez Roberto Gutierrez Leopoldo Cervantes David Salas Marcos Ortega Jorge Flores Juan Magana Martin Jimenez Jose Cuevas Miguel De La Torre Jorge Del Valle Librado Cruz Vicente Cedillo Manuel Alvarez Geronimo Limon Roberto Rodriguez Rafael Abarca Salvador Rodarte John Escobar Raul Sandoval Rosendo Orozco Israel Pacheco Manuel Rosales Jorge Alberto Rosales Mauro Munguia Carlos Jimenez Joaquin Villeges Bernard Russell Ramon Hernandez Arnulfo Leon v. Los Angeles County Music Center Operating Company R.A. Music, Inc. Family Restaurants, Sergio Bautista Miguel Rodriguez Jose Soto Manuel Fernandez Alice Farnham Alfredo Figueroa Jose Luis Alejo Mario Mejia Guadalupe Cedillo Hector Reyes Marcos Martinez Roberto Gutierrez Leopoldo Cervantes David Salas Marcos Ortega Jorge Flores Juan Magana Martin Jimenez Jose Cuevas Miguel De La Torre Jorge Del Valle Librado Cruz Vicente Cedillo Manuel Alvarez Geronimo Limon Roberto Rodriguez Rafael Abarca Salvador Rodarte John Escobar Raul Sandoval Rosendo Orozco Israel Pacheco Manuel Rosales Jorge Alberto Rosales Mauro Munguia Carlos Jimenez Joaquin Villeges Bernard Russell Ramon Hernandez Arnulfo Leon, Plaintiffs-Appellants-Cross-Appellees v. Los Angeles County Music Center Operating Company R.A. Music, Inc., Defendants-Appellees-Cross-Appellants, and Family Restaurants

216 F.3d 837 (Ninth Circuit, 2000)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

14 F.R.D. 504, 1953 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4567, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clark-v-springfield-city-water-co-mowd-1953.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack