Moviecolor Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co.
District Court, S.D. New York
1Opinion of the Court
HERLANDS, District Judge.
Whether plaintiff should be ordered to reply to the answer [F.R.Civ.P. rule 7(a), 28 U.S.C.A.] is the question posed by defendants’ motions. Rule 7(a) confers upon the court the discretionary power to "order a reply to an answer.”
The criteria for determining whether the court should grant or deny a motion to compel a reply have been described by commentators. Moore’s Federal Practice . (2d ed.) vol. 2, p. 1508; Note, 5 Fed. Rules Serv. 7a.222 (1942) at p. 803 ff.
The decisions represent not only pragmatic judgments based on the facts of the particular case but also…
2Cases cited10 opinions
- Maschmeijer v. IngramDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1951
- Columbia Pictures Corporation v. RogersDistrict Court, S.D. West Virginia · 1949
- Cramer v. Aluminum Cooking Utensil Co.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 1941
- Mason v. New York Cent. R.District Court, W.D. New York · 1949
- Bankers Bond & Mortgage Co. v. WitherowDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 1940
5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- (PC) Brown v. MarroquinDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Brown v. MarroquinDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2023
- (PC) Mills v. JonesDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- (PC) Zaiza v. ClarkDistrict Court, E.D. California · 2022
- Pitz v. GonzalezDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2025