Legal Opinion
Sequa Corp. v. Gelmin
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided March 18, 1994No. 91 Civ. 8675 (CSH)PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
HAIGHT, District Judge:
Plaintiffs Sequa Corporation (“Sequa”) and Sequa Capital Corporation (“SCC”) seek, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the Ninth Counterclaim of defendant GBJ Corporation (“GBJ”) and all counterclaims asserted by defendants Jeffrey J. Gelmin (“Gel-min”) and Topaz Capital Corporation (“Topaz”). In addition, pursuant to Rule 12(f), plaintiffs move to strike the Fifth and Ninth Affirmative Defenses of defendants GBJ, Gelmin, and Topaz.
BACKGROUND
The history of this litigation was set forth previously…
2Cases cited15 opinions
- Goldman v. BeldenCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
- Hooper Associates Ltd. v. AGS Computers, Inc.New York Court of Appeals · 1989
- Cosmas v. HassettCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1989
- Hadden v. Consolidated Edison Co.New York Court of Appeals · 1978
- Breed, Abbott & Morgan v. HulkoNew York Court of Appeals · 1989
10 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by18 opinions
- Bridgestone/firestone, Inc. v. Recovery Credit Services, Inc., Revenue Recovery, Inc. And George BeladinoCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1996
- Katzman v. Victoria's Secret CatalogueDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1996
- GEM Advisors, Inc. v. Corporación Sidenor, S.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2009
- BNP Paribas Mortgage Corp. v. Bank of America, N.A.District Court, S.D. New York · 2011
- Bonnie & Co. Fashions, Inc. v. Bankers Trust Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1997
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.