Legal Opinion
Barab v. Menford
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided January 20, 1983No. Civ. A. No. 81-4274PublishedCited by 10 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
VanARTSDALEN, District Judge.
Third-party defendant Channel Home Centers, Inc. (Channel) has filed a motion to file and serve a third-party complaint upon Joy Plastics, Inc. In a letter to the court, defendant’s counsel stated that he has no objection to Channel’s motion. Plaintiff’s counsel also stated in a letter to the court that he does not oppose Channel’s motion as long as this would not impede trial of this action. Notwithstanding that Channel’s motion is unopposed, the motion will be denied for the reasons set forth herein.
*456Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a)…
2Cases cited1 opinion
- Tiesler v. Martin Paint Stores, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1977
3Cited by10 opinions
- Watergate Landmark Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n v. Wiss, Janey, Elstner Associates, Inc.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 1987
- Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. SullivanCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1988
- Stratagem Development Corp. v. Heron International N.V.District Court, S.D. New York · 1994
- Toberman v. CopasDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Hartford Accident and Indemnity Company v. Michael Sullivan, Defendant-Third-Party-Plaintiff-Appellee v. Ford City Bank, Third-Party-Defendant-AppellantCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 1988
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.