Wood v. United Air Lines, Inc.
| Decision Date | 24 January 1963 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 61 C 620,61 C 276. |
| Citation | 216 F. Supp. 346 |
| Parties | Larmicia and Solomon WOOD, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and Trans World Airlines, Inc., Defendants. Larmicia and Solomon WOOD, Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant and Third-Party Plaintiff, v. UNITED AIR LINES, INC., and Trans World Airlines, Inc., Third-Party Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York |
Morris Hirschhorn, New York City, for plaintiffs; Harry A. Gair and Charles F. Krause, New York City, of counsel.
Haight, Gardner, Poor & Havens, New York City, for defendant, United Air Lines, Inc.; Walter E. Rutherford, New York City, of counsel.
Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, for defendant, Trans World Airlines, Inc.; P. G. Pennoyer, Jr., New York City, of counsel.
Joseph P. Hoey, U. S. Atty., Eastern District of New York; George V. O'Haire, Asst. U. S. Atty., of counsel.
This is a companion motion to a motion decided by this Court, D.C., 216 F.Supp. 340.
The motion of United Air Lines, Inc., to consolidate Actions No. 1 and No. 2 (61 C 620 and 61 C 276), referred to in said companion motion, is granted.
The opposition of the United States of America is without merit. United Air Lines, Inc., and Trans World Airlines, Inc., as third-party defendants can demand a jury trial even though the plaintiffs' action was instituted under the Federal Tort Claims Act. In a claim by the United States of America, any party is entitled to a jury. See United States v. Schlitz, 9 F.R.D. 259 (E.D.Va.); United States v. Rosati, 97 F.Supp. 747 (D.C. N.J.). The other objection is without merit in that the time limitation as to completion of pretrial proceedings can be extended by the Court.
Plaintiffs' claims arise out of the same occurrence, contain common questions of law and fact, and the ad damnum is the same.
An order may be entered in accordance with this opinion on two days' notice.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Barron v. U.S.
...litigation and was given the opportunity to intervene and defend. These propositions have substantial support. See Wood v. United States, 216 F.Supp. 346 (E.D.N.Y.1963) (party against whom United States makes a claim in a suit under the Federal Tort Claims Act entitled to a jury trial); Was......
-
Palmer v. U.S.
...claim for partial comparative indemnity. 1 See Wright v. United States, 80 F.R.D. 478, 479 (D.Mont.1978); Wood v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 346, 346 (E.D.N.Y.1963); 18 Am.Jur.2d Contribution § 112 There is no dispute here that Fisher filed a timely demand for a jury trial. Federal......
-
Georges v. Hennessey
...being sued, the right to a jury trial survives. City of Pittsburgh v. United States, 359 F.2d 564 (3d Cir. 1966); Wood v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.Supp. 346 (E.D.N.Y.1963); United States v. Rosati, 97 F.Supp. 747 (D.N.J.1951); United States v. Schlitz, 9 F.R.D. 259 (E.D.Va.1949). Since......