Sanders v. Thrall Car Mfg. Co., 920
| Decision Date | 28 March 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 920,D,920 |
| Parties | Fed. Sec. L. Rep. P 91,408 Phyllis SANDERS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. THRALL CAR MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al., Defendants-Appellees. ocket 83-7888. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Second Circuit |
Avrom S. Fisher, Brooklyn, N.Y., for plaintiff-appellant.
Lewis A. Kaplan, New York City (Harriet L. Goldberg, Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, Jack C. Auspitz, Charles S. Barquist, Parker Auspitz Neeseman & Delehanty P.C., New York City, on brief), for defendants-appellees.
Before MANSFIELD, NEWMAN and PRATT, Circuit Judges.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed on the well-reasoned opinion of District Judge Charles S. Haight, Jr., Sanders v. Thrall Car Manufacturing Co., 582 F.Supp. 945 (S.D.N.Y.1983).
To continue reading
Request your trial
48 cases
-
Clarke v. TRW, INC., 93-CV-1524 (FJS).
...more egregious circumstances than those presented here. See Sanders v. Thrall Car Mfg. Co., 582 F.Supp. 945, 951-52 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 730 F.2d 910 (2d Cir. 1984) (proposed complaint alleged entirely new theory of liability for the first time in complaint that would have been plaintiff'......
-
Cresswell v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 87 Civ. 2685 (RWS)
..."to show `some valid reason for his neglect and delay.'" Sanders v. Thrall Car Mfg. Co., 582 F.Supp. 945, 953 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 730 F.2d 910 (2d Cir.1984), quoting Hayes v. New England Millwork Distributors, Inc., 602 F.2d 15, 19-20 (1st Cir.1979) (quoting Freeman v. Continental Gin Co......
-
Stephenson v. Deutsche Bank Ag, s. Civ.024845(RJL/AJB), CIV023682(RJL/AJB), CIV023711(RHK/AJB).
...960 (S.D.N.Y.1983) (noting that "courts have consistently refused to imply private rights of action for damages under § 13(d)"), aff'd, 730 F.2d 910 (2d Cir.1984). Confronted with this overwhelming case law, the Trustee and E*Trade have concluded that discretion is the better part of valor ......
-
Kenney v. Clay, 6:11–CV–790 (DNH/ATB)
...movant to show some valid reason for his neglect and delay.” Sanders v. Thrall Car Mfg. Co., 582 F.Supp. 945, 952 (S.D.N.Y.1983), aff'd, 730 F.2d 910 (2d Cir.1984) ; see also Cresswell, 922 F.2d at 72 (“The burden is on the party who wishes to amend to provide a satisfactory explanation for......
Request a trial to view additional results