Legal Opinion

Gram v. May

District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

Decided August 29, 1966No. Civ. A. No. 38297PublishedCited by 4 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

KRAFT, District Judge.

The defendant has moved to dismiss this personal injury action under Rule 12(b) (7), because of the plaintiffs’ failure to join, before the running of the statue of limitations, an “indispensable party” defendant, Gloria Gram, who is co-executor of the defendant Estate. After the defendant filed his motion to dismiss, the plaintiffs filed a motion for leave to amend their complaint to add the eo-executor as a party defendant.

In considering the defendant’s motion under Rule 12 we must take cognizance as well of Rule 19, which deals with “joinder of persons needed…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. Holmes v. Pennsylvania RailroadSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1908
  2. Denver v. ForbesDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1960
  3. Frankel v. StyerDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1962
  4. Talley v. PiersenDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1963

3Cited by4 opinions

  1. Fair Housing Development Fund Corp. v. BurkeDistrict Court, E.D. New York · 1972
  2. In Re American Honda Motor Co. Dealerships Litig.District Court, D. Maryland · 1996
  3. Brennan v. Estate of SmithDistrict Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1969
  4. Prestenback v. Employers' Insurance CompaniesDistrict Court, E.D. Louisiana · 1969

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

Powered by the Exa API