Legal Opinion
Roth v. H.A.T. Painters, Inc.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided April 10, 1989No. Civ. A. No. 88-4905PublishedCited by 2 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DITTER, District Judge.
H.A.T. Painters, Inc. moves to dismiss the amended complaint1 of Robert Roth pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(7) and Fed. R.Civ.P. 19 for failure to join Oliver P. Cannon & Sons, Inc. which defendant alleges is an indispensable party.2 For the reasons which follow, I will deny HAT’s motion.
According to plaintiff’s amended complaint, in July, 1984, Roth and Arthur McDonald, the sole shareholders of International Coatings and Linings Corporation (ICLC) entered into a share purchase agreement with HAT. Pursuant to the agreement, HAT was to acquire all the…
2Cases cited8 opinions
- Provident Tradesmens Bank & Trust Co. v. PattersonSupreme Court of the United States · 1968
- Ed Freeman and Wife Sharon Freeman, Cross-Appellants v. Northwest Acceptance Corporation, Cross-AppelleeCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit · 1985
- Burger King Corp. v. American National Bank & Trust Co.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1988
- Lang v. Colonial Pipeline CompanyDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1967
- Sendi v. NCR Comten, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1985
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by2 opinions
- Ente Nazionale Idrocarburi v. Prudential Securities Group, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1990
- Buffalo Seafood House LLC v. Republic Services IncDistrict Court, D. South Carolina · 2023