Legal Opinion

Isenman v. Bandler

District Court, E.D. New York

Decided April 26, 1954No. Civ. No. 14007PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

RAYFIEL, District Judge.

The defendant moves under Rules 10(b), 12(b) (6), 12(e) and 12(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. (1) to strike from the amended complaint paragraphs designated therein as III (with the exception referred to in the notice of motion), V(a), V(b) and VI, because the allegations thereof are redundant, immaterial and impertinent, and, as to paragraphs V(a), V(b) and VI, for the further reason that they are too vague, indefinite and uncertain for any responsive answer thereto, (2) to compel plaintiff to separately state and number each claim founded…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Original Ballet Russe, Ltd. v. Ballet Theatre, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1943

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Paul W. Burkett v. United StatesUnited States Court of Claims · 1968
  2. Carter v. American Bus Lines, Inc.District Court, D. Nebraska · 1958
  3. De Leys v. Keta Gas & Oil Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1955
  4. Isenman v. BandlerDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1954

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API