Legal Opinion
Espinosa v. Van Dorn Plastic MacHinery Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
Decided February 17, 1993No. 91 Civ. 3416 (LAP)PublishedCited by 1 opinion
1Opinion of the Court
PRESKA, District Judge.
Defendant/Third Party Plaintiff, Van Dorn Company (“Van Dorn”) has moved, by letter brief, to have the third party action tried by a jury on the basis that the jury demand in the main action controls trial by jury on the third party complaint.
Facts
Plaintiffs, Zanaida and Alfredo Espinosa commenced a products liability action against Van Dorn in New York State Court. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332, Van Dorn removed this case to federal court. Following removal, plaintiff filed a jury demand. Van Dorn then answered the complaint and subsequently filed a third-party action…
2Cases cited7 opinions
- Winifred D. Noonan v. Cunard Steamship Co., Ltd.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1967
- Rosen v. DickCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1980
- In re N-500L CasesCourt of Appeals for the First Circuit · 1982
- Higgins v. Boeing Co.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1975
- Lisette Cascone v. Ortho Pharmaceutical CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1983
2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Aligheri v. Long Island RailroadDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1994