Engler v. General Electric Co.
| Decision Date | 19 September 1939 |
| Citation | 32 F. Supp. 913 |
| Parties | ENGLER v. GENERAL ELECTRIC CO. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Richard A. Engler, plaintiff in person.
Alexander C. Neave, of New York City, for defendant.
The defendant's motion addressed to the second amended complaint seeks the following relief: First, a dismissal of certain causes of action contained in the complaint; second, to strike out certain matter from the complaint; and third, to direct the plaintiff to serve a bill of particulars.
The Motion to Dismiss.
The plaintiff appears in person. A detailed discussion of the facts is unnecessary. The sufficiency of the plaintiff's first amended complaint was considered by Judge Hulbert who, in an opinion dated July 31, 1939, carefully set forth all the necessary facts and the authorities governing the situation, and dismissed the complaint for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter with leave to the plaintiff to amend his complaint. 29 F.Supp. 421.
The second amended complaint which is now before this court is being again challenged by the defendant as containing the same vices inherent in the former complaint. The court has studied both the present and previous complaints, the defendant's memorandum, the plaintiff's answer thereto, as well as two communications addressed by the plaintiff to the court, dated August 30, 1939, and September 16, 1939, respectively.
It appears that the plaintiff has reincorporated once again causes of action which Judge Hulbert had dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. In addition the plaintiff has added new causes of action charging the defendant with patent infringement and interference. From the plaintiff's answer to the defendant's motion, it would seem that he has abandoned his causes of action for the cancellation of the Alexanderson patents and for a declaratory judgment. There is therefore remaining in the complaint an action to recover damages for fraud, patent infringement and interference.
Judge Hulbert's decision on the jurisdictional questions involved is the law of the case and should be followed by this court. Irrespective of this, however, the court has considered the fact that the plaintiff is not being represented by counsel and has again examined the questions involved. From an independent study of the entire matter, the court has reached a similar decision. An action for damages based on fraud is one involving a common law tort and this court can only obtain jurisdiction through diversity of citizenship which is non-existent here (the plaintiff and defendant are citizens of the State of New York). The combining of this cause of action (fraud) with ones of pure federal jurisdiction (patent infringement and...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Pacific-Atlantic Steamship Company v. United States
...v. The San Leonardo, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 71 F. Supp. 852, 853; Haesen v. United States, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 66 F.Supp. 759; Engler v. General Electric Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 32 F.Supp. 913; Piest v. Tide Water Oil Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 27 F.Supp. 1021, 1022; Molesphini v. Bruno, D.C.E.D.N.Y., 26 F.Supp. 595; ......
-
American Chemical Paint Co. v. Parker Rust Proof Co., 8073.
... ... The coating process is expedited by the use of the electric current as used by plaintiff in its Electro Granodine process, and the magnitude of the current ... ...