States v. John F. Daly, Inc.

E.D. Pennsylvania

States v. John F. Daly, Inc.

96 F. Supp. 479, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2471

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedMarch 16, 1951

DocketCiv. A. No. 10824

StatusPublished

Cited by7 cases

This text of 96 F. Supp. 479 (States v. John F. Daly, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

States v. John F. Daly, Inc., 96 F. Supp. 479, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2471 (E.D. Pa. 1951).

Pincite

Opinion

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This suit, arising out of a motor accident, was instituted by the plaintiffs, a resident of Pennsylvania and a Delaware corporation, against defendants, two Pennsylvania corporations and a Michigan corporation. All defendants move to dismiss on the ground of lack of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Diversity does not exist between each plaintiff and the Pennsylvania corporate defendants, and the action must be dismissed as to them. However, inasmuch as those defendants are not indispensable parties, the plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint to allege a separable controversy with the Michigan corporate defendant, under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 21, 28 U.S.C.A. Where, because of the joinder of proper, though not indispensable, parties as defendants, there is no diversity of citizenship to sustain jurisdiction of the controversy as a whole, the District Court may permit a dismissal of such parties and thereby establish jurisdiction over a separable controversy with retroactive effect. Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co., D.C., 13 F.2d 246, Id., 5 Cir., 17 F.2d 468, Id., 277 U.S. 19, 48 S.Ct. 417, 72 L.Ed. 761; Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 84 U.S. 570, 21 L.Ed. 657; Interstate Refineries v. Barry, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 548; Dollar S. S. Lines v. Merz, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 594; Thomas v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 223 F. 41; Grove v. Grove, C.C., 93 F. 865; Sadler v. Sadler, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 120, 121; Kapp v. Frank W. Kerr & Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 509.

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

McGRANERY, District Judge.

This suit, arising out of a motor accident, was instituted by the plaintiffs, a resident of Pennsylvania and a Delaware corporation, against defendants, two Pennsylvania corporations and a Michigan corporation. All defendants move to dismiss on the ground of lack of diversity of citizenship jurisdiction.

Diversity does not exist between each plaintiff and the Pennsylvania corporate defendants, and the action must be dismissed as to them. However, inasmuch as those defendants are not indispensable parties, the plaintiffs will be granted leave to amend their complaint to allege a separable controversy with the Michigan corporate defendant, under Fed.Rules Civ. Proc. rule 21, 28 U.S.C.A. Where, because of the joinder of proper, though not indispensable, parties as defendants, there is no diversity of citizenship to sustain jurisdiction of the controversy as a whole, the District Court may permit a dismissal of such parties and thereby establish jurisdiction over a separable controversy with retroactive effect. Williams v. Great Southern Lumber Co., D.C., 13 F.2d 246, Id., 5 Cir., 17 F.2d 468, Id., 277 U.S. 19, 48 S.Ct. 417, 72 L.Ed. 761; Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 84 U.S. 570, 21 L.Ed. 657; Interstate Refineries v. Barry, 8 Cir., 7 F.2d 548; Dollar S. S. Lines v. Merz, 9 Cir., 68 F.2d 594; Thomas v. Anderson, 8 Cir., 223 F. 41; Grove v. Grove, C.C., 93 F. 865; Sadler v. Sadler, D.C., 65 F.Supp. 120, 121; Kapp v. Frank W. Kerr & Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 509.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

96 F. Supp. 479, 1951 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2471, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/states-v-john-f-daly-inc-paed-1951.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack