Brown v. Weschler, 2616-55.
| Decision Date | 07 November 1955 |
| Docket Number | No. 2616-55.,2616-55. |
| Parties | Nathaniel BROWN, Plaintiff, v. Benjamin E. WESCHLER et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Harry L. Ryan, Jr., Washington, D. C., for defendant.
On June 10, 1955, plaintiff brought suit in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia against the United States Marshal for the District of Columbia, two of his deputies, and three other defendants, Delores Pippin, Benjamin E. Weschler and Ralph A. Weschler, Jr. Personal service was made on the Marshal and his two deputies on June 10, 1955. On June 13, 1955, the attorney for defendant Pippin entered acceptance of service in her behalf, and on June 14, 1955, personal service was made on defendants Weschler. On June 15, 1955, a petition for removal was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia by the United States Marshal and his two deputies alleging that at the times and places referred to in the complaint they were acting as officers of an agency of the United States. This removal was sought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1442(a) (1) and 1446 which read as follows:
On the same day the petition for removal was filed, a bond in the sum of $100 with surety was filed in the United States District Court, a copy of the petition was filed in the Municipal Court for the District of Columbia, and notice of the removal was given to the plaintiff. No notice was given to the co-defendants, Pippin and the Weschlers, who were named in the original Municipal Court action.
On June 28, 1955, defendants Weschler filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in the Municipal Court; and on June 29, 1955, defendant Pippin filed an answer to the complaint in the Municipal Court. The records of the Municipal Court indicate that in July, 1955, (notice to counsel for the defendants Weschler was dated July 12, 1955) counsel for plaintiff filed a memorandum of law claiming the case had been removed to the United States District Court effective as of June 15, 1955, and that the Municipal Court had no further jurisdiction. However, on July 14, 1955, the Municipal Court denied the motion to dismiss the complaint as to the defendants Weschler and on August 24, 1955, defendants Weschler answered the complaint in the Municipal Court. On September 9, 1955, the case was then marked "Ready for Trial Calendar" on the records of the Municipal Court.
On July 21, 1955, no action having been taken by the defendants Pippin and the Weschlers to make answer in the United States District Court, counsel for the plaintiff gave formal notice to them that they were in default and that default would be entered of record on Monday, July 25, 1955, unless appropriate pleadings were filed in the United States District Court. On July 22, 1955, counsel for defendant Pippin filed an answer to the complaint in the United States District Court, but defendants Weschler did not then file and have not now filed any pleading in response to the complaint in the United States District Court. On August 9, 1955, counsel for plaintiff filed an affidavit in support of default...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Murphy v. Kodz
...Bradford v. Harding, 284 F.2d 307 (2d Cir. 1960); Allman v. Hanley, 302 F.2d 559, 562 (5th Cir. 1962): See also, Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622, 623 (D.C.D.C.1955). So, too, many cases indicate that if removable to a federal court, subsequent developments in a case following removal do ......
-
Bross Utilities Service Corp. v. Aboubshait, Civ. No. H 78-582.
...such a judgment to subsequent attack is a factor to be considered in determining whether judgment should be entered. See Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622 (D.D.C. 1955); Henry v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 3 F.R.D. 142 (W.D.Va.1942); 10 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice & Proce......
-
U.S. v. An Undetermined Quantity of an Article of Drug Labeled as Benylin Cough Syrup, 78-1122
...and in analogous cases at least some courts have found such assumptions sufficient to justify Rule 60(b) (1) relief. See Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622 (D.D.C.1955); cf. In re Jones, 560 F.2d 775, 778 (7th Cir. 1977). But see United States v. Erdoss, 440 F.2d 1221 (2d Cir. 1971), certio......
-
Allman v. Hanley
...or not. Bradford v. Harding, 284 F.2d 307 (2d Cir.1960). See also Jones v. Elliott, 94 F.Supp. 567 (E.D.Va.1950); Brown v. Weschler, 135 F.Supp. 622 (D.C.1955); Lowe v. Jacobs, 243 F.2d 432 (5th Cir. 1957), certiorari denied 355 U.S. 842, 78 S.Ct. 65, 2 L.Ed.2d 52; Barney v. Latham, 103 U.S......