Brust v. Industrial Bank of Commerce
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
WEINFELD, District Judge.
I am not disposed to penalize the defendant for the neglect of its counsel in failing promptly to respond to the requests for admission made pursuant to Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., which is attributed to lack of familiarity with the Federal Rules, particularly so since I am not at all persuaded that plaintiffs will be prejudiced if they are required to accept the belatedly proferred responses. Under the circumstances, it is unnecessary to decide whether the neglect here constitutes “excusable neglect” within the meaning of Rule 6(b)…
2Cited by3 opinions
- Moosman v. Joseph P. Blitz, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966
- Pleasant Hill Bank v. United StatesDistrict Court, W.D. Missouri · 1973
- William Moosman, Doing Business as William Moosman Company v. Joseph P. Blitz, Inc. And Maryland Casualty Company v. Aetna Insurance Company, Third-PartyCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1966