Opinion · Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Rosenberg Brothers & Co., Inc., a Corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a Corporation v. Albert Arnold

283 F.2d 406

Type
Opinion
Court
Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jurisdiction
Federal
Date
1960-10-10
Topic
general

How later courts describe this case

  • noting that the Ninth Circuit has a 25 policy of “extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings.”
  • noting that the Ninth Circuit has a policy of “extreme liberality generally in favoring 23 amendments to pleadings.”
  • noting 18 that the Ninth Circuit has a policy of “extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to 19 pleadings.”

Citator

UpLaw has not yet analyzed Rosenberg Brothers & Co., Inc., a Corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated, a Corporation v. Albert Arnold. The absence of a flag is not a finding that it is good law.

Cited by
77 opinions
ROSENBERG BROTHERS CO., INC. v. ARNOLD,283 F.2d 406(9th Cir. 1960)
ROSENBERG BROTHERS CO., Inc., a corporation, Arnold-Hoover,
Incorporated, a corporation, Appellants, v. Albert ARNOLD, Appellee.
No. 16762.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
October 10, 1960.
Johnson Stanton, Marshall A. Staunton, Gardiner Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Severson, Zang, Werson, Berke Larson, Nathan R. Berke, David C. Bull, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.
Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.
PER CURIAM.
In view of the extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the general policy thereunder of wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter, we hold it was error not to let appellant's amended counterclaim stay in the pleadings.

The appellee says the counterclaim is "delay" and "more delay." The trial court perhaps was so impressed. If henceforward the appellant-defendant should be guilty of delaying tactics, the trial court has a number of available sanctions. And, in view of the leniency in permitting reinstatement, we do say that the defendant has an obligation to press for a speedy and early determination of the cause.

The final order dismissing the amended counterclaim is reversed.Page 407