Nolan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.

11 F.R.D. 194, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3588
District Court, S.D. New York·Decided January 18, 1951·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

WEINFELD, District Judge.

Motion for permission to -serve an amended complaint as proposed is granted. Rule 15(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. provides that such leave shall be freely given when justice so requires.

Plaintiff moved promptly to eliminate its prayer for injunctive relief and an accounting when it discovered during the taking of the defendant’s deposition that the alleged infringing program was on a sustaining basis and that the defendant did not gain [195]*195profits therefrom. It is no sufficient objection to the amendment that its purpose is to secure a jury trial. Certainly defendant’s rights are not prejudiced by the granting of this motion. Pallant v. Sinatra, D.C., 7 F.R.D. 293; Fischer & Porter Co. v. Brooks Rotameter Co., D.C., 86 F.Supp. 502; Lieberman v. Merkin, D.C., 2 F.R.D. 315.

Settle order.

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

Nolan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 11 F.R.D. 194, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3588 (S.D.N.Y. 1951).

11 F.R.D. 194 (Nolan v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fox v. SHANNON & LUCHS COMPANY OF WASHINGTON
236 A.2d 60 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 1967)