Legal Opinion

Southern Equipment Co. v. Christensen

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided January 24, 1966No. 65 Civ. 2920PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

BONSAL, District Judge.

Defendants Christensen, Beck, Better Living Building Associates and Edward H. Burdick Associates, Inc. move pursuant to Rule 38(b) and (d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for an order striking plaintiff’s demand for jury-trial as untimely. The jury demand was served on November 17, 1965, 21 days after service of the last answer to the original complaint but within 10 days of the defendants’ answers to the amended complaint. Unless the amended complaint changed the nature of the action, the jury demand was untimely. Alcoa S. S. Co. v. Ryan, 211 F.2d 576 (2d Cir.…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Alcoa S. S. Co., Inc. v. RyanCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1954
  2. Goldblatt v. InchCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1953
  3. Transocean Air Lines v. Pan American World Airways, Inc.District Court, S.D. New York · 1964

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  2. Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Medical CenterDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1982
  3. Cardio-Medical Associates, Ltd. v. Crozer-Chester Medical CenterCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
  4. Lanza v. Drexel & Co.District Court, S.D. New York · 1967

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API