Kassner v. United States Pictures
| Decision Date | 27 December 1948 |
| Citation | 82 F. Supp. 633 |
| Parties | KASSNER v. UNITED STATES PICTURES, Inc., et al. MENCHER v. UNITED STATES PICTURES, Inc., et al. LAVINE v. UNITED STATES PICTURES, Inc., et al. BIRN v. UNITED STATES PICTURES, Inc., et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Moroney & Ettinger, of New York City (Sol Pottish and Harry L. Ettinger, both of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff Birn.
Israel Beckhardt, of New York City, for plaintiff Kassner.
Oscar Schleiff, of New York City, for plaintiff Lavine.
Sidney L. Garwin, of New York City, for plaintiff Mencher.
Simpson, Thacher & Bartlett, of New York City, for defendant Bernhard.
Friedman & Bareford, of New York City, for defendants Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., and Robert W. Perkins.
Similar motions to dismiss the complaint in four different stockholders' derivative actions are made by defendants, who urge that this court is without jurisdiction because of lack of diversity of citizenship — the ground upon which jurisdiction is predicated.
The defendants in all four actions are the same except for the action brought by plaintiff Birn in which Robert W. Perkins is not named defendant. The claims asserted are identical —
Plaintiffs-stockholders assert on behalf of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc., the allegedly wronged corporation, claims against certain officers and directors of that corporation and against other corporations alleging that by their wrongful acts, they and others benefited to the detriment of Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
Since the questions raised by these motions are the same they are simultaneously considered.
Plaintiffs are citizens of New York; defendants Robert W. Perkins and Joseph Bernhard are conceded by plaintiffs to be citizens of New York, also. The complaints as to these defendants must be dismissed.
This having been accomplished, the remaining defendants argue that the complaints as to all of them must be dismissed, because Perkins and Bernhard are indispensable parties to the suits in which they were originally named. Federal Rules Civil Procedure, rule 19, 28 U.S.C.A.
The dismissal of the complaint as to one or more of the named defendants, when it will cure a defect claimed in jurisdiction does not of necessity require the dismissal of the action as to all defendants. Galdi v. Jones, 2 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 984.
The liability of all the defendants on the claims pleaded is joint and several. Defendants Perkins and Bernhard...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Finn v. American Fire & Casualty Co.
...D.C., 82 F.Supp. 546, affirmed 9 Cir., 181 F.2d 1010; O'Neal v. National Cylinder Gas Co., D.C., 103 F.Supp. 720; Kassner v. U. S. Pictures, D.C., 82 F. Supp. 633; States v. John F. Daly, Inc., D.C., 96 F.Supp. ...
-
Montro Corp. v. Prindle
...as parties presenting an embarrassing question of jurisdiction. Galdi v. Jones, 2 Cir., 141 F.2d 984, 991; Kassner v. United States Pictures, D.C., S.D.N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 633. Consequently, it is not denied that venue of subject matter could be sustained in Y district under the general venue ......
-
Gorham v. Edwards
...the severance of the action as to the remaining defendants. Genovese v. Skol Co., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 73 F.Supp. 423; Kassner v. United States Pictures, D.C.S.D.N.Y., 82 F.Supp. 633; A.B.C. Needlecraft Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., D.C.S.D.N.Y., 143 F.Supp. 686, reversed on other grounds 2 Cir.,......
-
Champion Spark Plug Company v. Karchmar
...as to the remaining defendants since joint-tortfeasors are neither necessary nor indispensable parties. Kassner v. United States Pictures, Inc., D.C.S.D. N.Y.1948, 82 F.Supp. 633. And the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has concluded that this proposition is so well settled that it ......