Legal Opinion
Hagstrom v. Breutman
District Court, N.D. Illinois
Decided October 3, 1983No. 83 C 476PublishedCited by 30 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM OPINION
WILL, District Judge.
This is an action brought under section 4b of the Commodity Exchange Act (“CEA”), 7 U.S.C. § 6b and 28 U.S.C. § 1331, alleging fraud. In addition, as pendent state claims, plaintiffs charge, among other things, breach of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment. Defendants have moved, pursuant to Rule 12(b), Fed.R.Civ.P., for the entry of an order dismissing plaintiffs’ complaint. Defendants claim that 1) we lack jurisdiction over the subject matter of this suit 1 ; 2) plaintiffs have failed to join a party under Rule 19 2 ; 3) plaintiffs have failed to…
2Cases cited46 opinions
- Conley v. GibsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1957
- United Mine Workers of America v. GibbsSupreme Court of the United States · 1966
- Scheuer v. RhodesSupreme Court of the United States · 1974
- Cannon v. University of ChicagoSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conklin Mfg. Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1967
41 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by30 opinions
- Midwest Grinding Co. v. SpitzCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Midwest Grinding Company, Inc. v. SpitzCourt of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit · 1992
- Evanston Bank v. Conticommodity Services, Inc.District Court, N.D. Illinois · 1985
- Poling v. K. Hovnanian EnterprisesDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2000
- Korwek v. HuntDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 1986
25 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.