Legal Opinion
Horwitt v. Movado Watch Agency, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 12, 1974No. 71 Civ. 5537PublishedCited by 6 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM
LASKER, District Judge.
Although Rule 15, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, states that leave to amend “shall be freely given when justice so requires”, the instant motion must be denied because the proposed additional causes of action fail to state claims under New York law.
The first claim is deficient since it does not allege the existence of a clearly valid contract, the procuring of an actual breach of the contract, or actual damages. Israel v. Wood Dolson Co., Inc., 1 N.Y.2d 116 at 120, 151 N.Y. S.2d 1, 134 N.E.2d 97 (1956). The contract referred to appears to be a royalty…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Israel v. Wood Dolson Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1956
- Scott Paper Co. v. Marcalus Manufacturing Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Brulotte v. Thys Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1964
- Ruza v. RuzaAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1955
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Gutierrez v. VergariDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1980
- Brame v. Ray Bills Finance Corp.District Court, N.D. New York · 1979
- Schaghticoke Tribe of Indians v. Kent School Corp.District Court, D. Connecticut · 1976
- Skoller v. Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Greater New YorkDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1984
- Majorica, S.A. v. Majorca International, Ltd.District Court, S.D. New York · 1988
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.