Kelly v. Delaware River Joint Commission

10 F.R.D. 455, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania·Decided July 27, 1950·No. No. 9303·Published·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

GANEY, District Judge.

This is a motion to. amend a complaint one year after a judgment of dismissal has been entered and unappealed from. D.C., 85 F.Supp. 15.

Since a judgment of dismissal has been here entered, the proper procedure would be a petition for leave to open the judgment, coupled with a request for leave to. amend. However, considering this petition as covering both of these requests, the question then posed is whether leave to amend may be allowed.

[456] While a motion to dismiss is not a responsive pleading within the meaning of 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., United States v. Newbury Mfg. C.o. et al., 1 Cir., 123 F.2d 453, nevertheless it was never intended that a plaintiff should have the right to amend without limit of time after judgment of dismissal has been entered. It would seem that the limit of one year set in Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules, supra, is a fair limit within which the Court should exercise its discretionary power. Kroell v. New York Ambassador, Inc., 2 Cir., 108 F.2d 294, 296.

Since one year has here elapsed, the plaintiff’s motion is denied.

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

Kelly v. Delaware River Joint Commission, 10 F.R.D. 455, 1950 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3693 (E.D. Pa. 1950).

10 F.R.D. 455 (Kelly v. Delaware River Joint Commission) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Newman, Jr. v. AECIQ
E.D. California, 2025
Vincent v. City of Bowling Green
349 S.W.2d 694 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky, 1961)
James Ex Rel. LeMaire v. Hillerich & Bradsby Co.
299 S.W.2d 92 (Court of Appeals of Kentucky (pre-1976), 1956)