Legal Opinion
Unispec Development Corp. v. Harwood K. Smith & Partners
District Court, D. Arizona
Decided December 27, 1988No. CIV 87-899 PHX RCBPublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER
BROOMFIELD, District Judge.
Defendant Harwood K. Smith & Partners (“HKS”) moves for leave to file an amended answer and counterclaim in the above entitled action. Leave to file an amended answer, (or in this case more appropriately leave to amend an answer), is governed by Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a). Leave to file a counterclaim is governed by Fed.R. Civ.P. 13. Although these are technically two different procedures governed by two different sections of the Federal Rules, the standards for granting each are similar and thus will be considered simultaneously.
HKS’s proposed counterclaim includes a…
2Cases cited20 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Franchise Realty Interstate Corporation and McDonald Systems of California, Inc. v. San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary WorkersCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1976
- Gabrielson v. Montgomery Ward & Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1986
- Morris v. Achen Const. Co., Inc.Arizona Supreme Court · 1987
- WJ Kroeger Co. v. Travelers Indemnity CompanyArizona Supreme Court · 1975
15 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- Lazuran v. KempDistrict Court, W.D. Washington · 1991
- Technographics, Inc. v. Mercer Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Preferred Meal Systems v. Save More Foods, Inc.District Court, District of Columbia · 1990
- (PS) Jones v. Liberty MutualDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2020
- IceMOS Technology Corporation v. Omron CorporationDistrict Court, D. Arizona · 2019