ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co.

S.D. California

ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co.

1 F.R.D. 598, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2030

CourtDistrict Court, S.D. California

DecidedDecember 31, 1940

DocketNo. 70 Civil

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 1 F.R.D. 598 (ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, S.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co., 1 F.R.D. 598, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2030 (S.D. Cal. 1940).

Pincite

Opinion

BEAUMONT, District Judge.

Viewing the complaint as a whole, the court is of the opinion that a cause of action for injunctive relief has been-pleaded. Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corporation, 38 Cal.App.2d 11, 100 P.2d 528; United Railroads v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. 80, 155 P. 463; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378, 46 P. 166, 55 Am.St.Rep. 74.

The defenses of laches, stale demands and the statute of limitations may not be asserted by motion to dismiss, but should be set forth affirmatively in defendant’s answer (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Patsavouras v. Garfield, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 406; Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 789; Holmberg v. Hannaford, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 216; Raker v. United States, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 432; Baker v. Sisk, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 232; Nordman v. Johnson City, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 51), and that same rule prevails as to the defense of pendency of another action. F.R.C.P. 12 [599]*599(b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441.

The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.

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

BEAUMONT, District Judge.

Viewing the complaint as a whole, the court is of the opinion that a cause of action for injunctive relief has been-pleaded. Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corporation, 38 Cal.App.2d 11, 100 P.2d 528; United Railroads v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. 80, 155 P. 463; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378, 46 P. 166, 55 Am.St.Rep. 74.

The defenses of laches, stale demands and the statute of limitations may not be asserted by motion to dismiss, but should be set forth affirmatively in defendant’s answer (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Patsavouras v. Garfield, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 406; Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 789; Holmberg v. Hannaford, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 216; Raker v. United States, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 432; Baker v. Sisk, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 232; Nordman v. Johnson City, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 51), and that same rule prevails as to the defense of pendency of another action. F.R.C.P. 12 [599]*599(b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441.

The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

1 F.R.D. 598, 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2030, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ter-haar-v-seaboard-oil-co-casd-1940.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack