ROSENBERG BROTHERS & CO., INC. v. Arnold

Decision Date10 October 1960
Docket NumberNo. 16762.,16762.
Citation283 F.2d 406
PartiesROSENBERG BROTHERS & CO., Inc., a corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a corporation, Appellants, v. Albert ARNOLD, Appellee.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

Johnson & Stanton, Marshall A. Staunton, Gardiner Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Severson, Zang, Werson, Berke & Larson, Nathan R. Berke, David C. Bull, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

In view of the extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the general policy thereunder of wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter, we hold it was error not to let appellant's amended counterclaim stay in the pleadings.

The appellee says the counterclaim is "delay" and "more delay." The trial court perhaps was so impressed. If henceforward the appellant-defendant should be guilty of delaying tactics, the trial court has a number of available sanctions. And,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
49 cases
  • Sierra Club v. Union Oil Co. of California
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • April 3, 1987
    ...will further the federal policy of "wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter." Rosenberg Bros. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir.1960) (per curiam). For all of these reasons, we reverse the district court's denial of Sierra Club's motion for leave to amend. Sierr......
  • Eldridge v. Block
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit
    • December 22, 1987
    ...amendments to pleadings should be applied with 'extreme liberality.' " Webb, 655 F.2d at 979 (citing Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir.1960) (per curiam)). This policy is applied even more liberally to pro se litigants. Thus in Armstrong v. Rushing, 352 F.2d 836 (9th......
  • Hughey v. Drummond
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California
    • July 15, 2015
    ...14 and 15) In light of the high degree of liberality afforded to parties seeking amendment in this Circuit, Rosenberg Brothers & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960), Plaintiffs are given leave to amend the FAC in full. Plaintiffs shall file and serve an amended complaint within 30 d......
  • Wendkos v. ABC CONSOLIDATED CORPORATION
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • July 12, 1974
    ...Cooper v. American Emp. Ins. Co., 296 F.2d 303 (6th Cir. 1961); Fuhrer v. Fuhrer, 292 F.2d 140 (7th Cir. 1961); Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Arnold, 283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960). 5 See, e. g., Ely v. Reading Co., 424 F.2d 758 (3d Cir. 1970); Bettes v. Stonewall Ins. Co., 480 F.2d 92 (5th Cir. 1......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT