Agostino Ferrari, S.P.A. v. Antonacci
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
1Opinion of the Court
ORDER-MEMORANDUM
EDUARDO C. ROBRENO, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 26th day of July, 1994, upon consideration of the plaintiff’s motion to amend its complaint (Doe. No. 23), the defendants’ response thereto and motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (Doc. No. 24), and the plaintiffs motion for continuance (Doc. No. 25), and after a final pretrial conference in this matter, it appearing that the Court is without subject matter jurisdiction, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion to amend is DENIED, the motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the motion for continuance is DENIED AS…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- Foman v. DavisSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
- Lorenz v. CSX Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1993
- Massarsky v. General Motors Corp.Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1983
- Bechtel v. RobinsonCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1989
- Field v. Volkswagenwerk AGCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1980
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Arch Associates Corp.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1997