Legal Opinion

Himmelblau v. Haist

District Court, S.D. New York

Decided June 9, 1961PublishedCited by 2 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

METZNER, District Judge.

This motion by Hyman Marcus, one of the individual defendants, is brought pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction.

The original complaint, in the nature of a derivative stockholders’ suit, was instituted by Himmelblau against a number of defendants. Jurisdiction was based upon diversity. Subsequently, upon motion by the defendants, plaintiff was directed to post security in the amount of $50,000 pursuant to the requirements of Section 61-b of the New York General Corporation Law,…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Supreme Tribe of Ben-Hur v. CaubleSupreme Court of the United States · 1921
  2. Stewart v. DunhamSupreme Court of the United States · 1885
  3. Weinstock v. KalletDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
  4. Acken v. New York Title & Mortgage Co.District Court, N.D. New York · 1934

3Cited by2 opinions

  1. Weiner v. WintersDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1970
  2. Zimmerman v. BellDistrict Court, D. Maryland · 1984

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

Powered by the Exa API