Aberdeen Hosiery Mills Co. v. Kaufman
Citation | 113 F. Supp. 833 |
Parties | ABERDEEN HOSIERY MILLS CO., Inc. et al. v. KAUFMAN et al. |
Decision Date | 27 April 1953 |
Court | United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. Southern District of New York |
Darby & Darby, New York City, for plaintiffs.
Theodore L. Harrison and Hardy, Stancliffe & Hardy, New York City, for Julius Kayser & Co.
Harold L. Glasser, New York City, for Chas. A. Kaufman, Standard Hosiery Mills, Inc. and Elaine K. Mark.
Milton N. Scofield and Stroock & Stroock & Lavan, New York City, for Chester H. Roth Co., Inc.
Joseph G. Denny, Jr., Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel, for defendants.
This is a motion by plaintiffs to dismiss the argued cause of action set forth in paragraphs 8 to 17, inclusive, of the counterclaim, for lack of jurisdiction.
The question presented is whether the charges in the counterclaim, dealing with interference with contract, champerty, maintenance and so forth, are within the jurisdiction of this court in a case arising under the patent laws, in the absence of diversity of citizenship of the parties and of allegations of the requisite jurisdictional amount.
It appears that the complaint raises the issue of infringement by each plaintiff. It further appears that the counterclaim in question raises the issue of infringement by plaintiffs regardless of the form in which such alleged infringement may have occurred. In any event, I am satisfied that in the absence of defendants' patent and the plaintiffs' alleged acts, irrespective of the nomenclature applied thereto, neither party would have any grievance against the other.
The Federal Courts have always deemed that their statutory jurisdiction is implemented by an ancillary jurisdiction lacking expressed statutory authorization. Such jurisdiction is based on the theory that it is essential to the independence and self-sufficiency of the Federal Courts. See Silberg, Ancillary Jurisdiction In The Federal Courts, 12 J. Air L. 288 (1941), quoted in Forrester, Federal Jurisdiction and Procedure (1950), p. 291.
A pleading may state as a counterclaim any claim by one party against the adverse party arising out of the transaction or occurrence that is the subject matter of the original action, or relating to any property that is the subject matter of the original action.
Under earlier practice, counter claims and cross claims were all lumped together as cross-bills. 3 Moore's Federal Practice Par. 1334, p. 93 (2d Ed. 1948). However, Rules 13 and 14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure now distinguish between them. Rule 13(a) and Rule 13(b) refer to compulsory and permissive counterclaims respectively. It is...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Florida Medical Ass'n v. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, ETC., 78-178-Civ-J-S.
..."is based on the theory that it is essential to the independence and self-sufficiency of the Federal Courts." Averdeen Hosiery Mills v. Kaufman, 113 F.Supp. 833-34 (S.D.N.Y.1953). The test for the exercise of ancillary jurisdiction is whether the secondary and additional issues or parties a......
-
American-Hawaiian Steamship Co. v. Bowring & Co.
...even should the complaint be dismissed since the complaint meets the requirements for Federal jurisdiction. Aberdeen Hosiery Mills Co. v. Kaufman, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 113 F.Supp. 833; 3 Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 13.19 (2d Ed.1948); West Coast Tanneries, Ltd., v. Anglo-American Hides Co., Inc., D.......
- Weathers v. Univ. of N.C. At Chapel Hill, 1:17CV251.