Legal Opinion
Ainsworth v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.
District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Decided March 21, 1969No. Civ. No. 68-102PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
*480ORDER
DAUGHERTY, District Judge.
The Court has under consideration the Combined Motion of Defendants Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., and Russell Pace to Dismiss the Amended Complaint and for a More Definite Statement.
The basis of the Motion to Dismiss is that there is now pending in the Southern District of Texas an action involving some of the same Defendants and similar subject matter. The Motion, insofar as it prays for dismissal, is denied for the reason that it does not assert any of the defenses enumerated in Rule 12 (b), F.R.Civ.P., 28 U.S.C.A., which may be raised by…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Kerotest Manufacturing Co. v. C-O-Two Fire Equipment Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1952
- Mattel, Inc. v. Louis Marx & Co., Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1965
- Goldstein v. North Jersey Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1966
- United States v. Standard Oil Co. of CaliforniaDistrict Court, S.D. California · 1947
3Cited by4 opinions
- Ward v. Follett Corp.District Court, N.D. California · 1994
- Plating Resources, Inc. v. UTI Corp.District Court, N.D. Ohio · 1999
- Private Medical Care Foundation, Inc. v. CalifanoDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977
- Coseka Resources (U.S.A.) Ltd. v. JordanDistrict Court, W.D. Oklahoma · 1977