Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp.

S.D. New York

Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp.

9 F.R.D. 204, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3170

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. New York

DecidedMay 24, 1949

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 9 F.R.D. 204 (Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohn v. Columbia Pictures Corp., 9 F.R.D. 204, 1949 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3170 (S.D.N.Y. 1949).

Pincite

Opinion

RIFKIND, District Judge.

On the defendant’s motion and plaintiff’s cross-motion:

1. The action is dismissed as against defendant Blancke. He is not an indispensable party. Jurisdiction of the action is thereby preserved. Weaver v. Marcus, 4 Cir., 1948, 165 F.2d 862, 175 A.L.R. 1305; Wells v. Universal Pictures Co., 2 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 690, 692. Notice provisions of Rule 23(c), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., are in applicable.

2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the action for lack of jurisdiction of the subject matter is denied.

3. The moving defendants, having served a motion purporting to affect the ■complaint, have appeared. Rule 2, Civil Rules, S.D.N.Y. Service of an amended ■complaint may, therefore, be made upon their attorneys. Rule 5(b), Federal Rules ■of Civil Procedure. Plaintiff may amend his complaint once as a matter of course before answer. To avoid question of compliance with Rule 21, let him now serve his amended complaint upon the attorneys •for the defendants.

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