Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co.

W.D. New York

Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co.

1 F.R.D. 244, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1908

CourtDistrict Court, W.D. New York

DecidedApril 27, 1940

DocketNos. 1410, 1667-A, 1665-A, 1679-A, 1738-A

StatusPublished

This text of 1 F.R.D. 244 (Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, W.D. New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Michalek v. United States Gypsum Co., 1 F.R.D. 244, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1908 (W.D.N.Y. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

BURKE, District Judge.

The defendant moves under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order consolidating the actions and directing a joint trial of all the matters in issue. The actions are brought to recover damages for lung injuries alleged to have been sustained in defendant’s gypsum mine and claimed to be due to defendant’s fault or neglect regarding working conditions in the mine. The motion papers show that although the work of all of the plaintiffs was performed in the same mine that the location where each plaintiff was employed and the exposure to the source of the alleged harmful dust was different in each case. The extent of the injuries to each plaintiff is also different. Under the circumstances I think that the plaintiffs’ rights would be substantially prejudiced by a joint trial.

Motion denied.

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

BURKE, District Judge.

The defendant moves under Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, for an order consolidating the actions and directing a joint trial of all the matters in issue. The actions are brought to recover damages for lung injuries alleged to have been sustained in defendant’s gypsum mine and claimed to be due to defendant’s fault or neglect regarding working conditions in the mine. The motion papers show that although the work of all of the plaintiffs was performed in the same mine that the location where each plaintiff was employed and the exposure to the source of the alleged harmful dust was different in each case. The extent of the injuries to each plaintiff is also different. Under the circumstances I think that the plaintiffs’ rights would be substantially prejudiced by a joint trial.

Motion denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F.R.D. 244, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1908, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/michalek-v-united-states-gypsum-co-nywd-1940.