Opinion · District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.

83 F. Supp. 455

Type
Opinion
Court
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Date
1949-01-21
Topic
bankruptcy

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge. Final judgment in this case was entered by this Court on December 19, 1946, D.C., 69 F.Supp. 103. Thereafter there was an appeal, an affirmance by the Circuit Court of Appeals and, 3 Cir., 164 F.2d 1021, on May 3, 1948, denial by the Supreme Court of a petition for certiorari. 334 U.S. 811, 69 S.Ct. 1016. On June 23, 1948, the plaintiff filed with this Court a motion to reform the final decree by providing either that the defendants divest themselves of theatre ownership in this district or that cross-licensing among the defendants be prohibited. Pending at that time were motions by some of the defendants for an interpretation of the decree.

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed William Goldman Theatres, Inc. v. Loew's, Inc.. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
5 opinions
WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES v. LOEW'S, INC., (E.D.Pa. 1949)
83 F. Supp. 455
WILLIAM GOLDMAN THEATRES, Inc. v. LOEW'S, Inc. et al.
Civ. No. 2877.
United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.
January 21, 1949.
On defendant's motion to strike and dismiss plaintiff's motion to reconsider motion to reform final decree.

Motion to strike granted.

For former decree, see D.C.,69 F. Supp. 103.
William A. Gray, Francis T. Anderson and Barnes, Dechert, Price Smith, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.

Schnader, Kenworthey, Segal Lewis and Wolf, Block, Schorr Solis-Cohen, all of Philadelphia, Pa., for defendants.
KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.
Final judgment in this case was entered by this Court on December 19, 1946, D.C.,69 F. Supp. 103. Thereafter there was an appeal, an affirmance by the Circuit Court of Appeals and, 3 Cir.,164 F.2d 1021, on May 3, 1948, denial by the Supreme Court of a petition for certiorari.334 U.S. 811,69 S.Ct. 1016.

On June 23, 1948, the plaintiff filed with this Court a motion to reform the final decree by providing either that the defendants divest themselves of theatre ownership in this district or that cross-licensing among the defendants be prohibited. Pending at that time were motions by some of the defendants for an interpretation of the decree. The plaintiff's and the defendants' motions were argued together, and at the argument, on November 1, the Court denied the plaintiff's motion, disposing of the defendants' motions later on in a memorandum opinion filed on November 30.

On January 5, 1949, the plaintiff moved the Court "to reconsider, and, after reconsideration, to grant the plaintiff's Motion to reform the Court's Final Decree entered December 19, 1946." The defendants then filed this motion to strike and dismiss the plaintiff's motion to reconsider.

Rule59(a), (b) and (e), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., precludes the Court from entertaining this motion to reconsider, which was made 55 days after the expiration of the 10 day limit set by Rule 59 for such motions, as interpreted in Safeway Stores v. Coe, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 19, 136 F.2d 771, 148 A.L.R. 782. The Court has no power to extend the time. Rule 6(b) authorizes extensions of time by the Court in some matters, "but it may not extend the time for taking any action under Rules * * * 59(b), (d) and (e) * * *".

The motion to strike is granted.West Page 457