ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co.
DIRK TER HAAR v. SEABOARD OIL CO OF DELAWARE
Opinion of the Court
Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.
BEAUMONT, District Judge.
Viewing the complaint as a whole, the court is of the opinion that a cause of action for injunctive relief has been-pleaded. Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corporation, 38 Cal.App.2d 11 , 100 P.2d 528 ; United Railroads v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. 80 , 155 P. 463 ; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378 , 46 P. 166 , 55 Am.St.Rep. 74 .
The defenses of laches, stale demands and the statute of limitations may not be asserted by motion to dismiss, but should be set forth affirmatively in defendant’s answer (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Patsavouras v. Garfield, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 406 ; Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 789 ; Holmberg v. Hannaford, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 216 ; Raker v. United States, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 432 ; Baker v. Sisk, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 232 ; Nordman v. Johnson City, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 51 ), and that same rule prevails as to the defense of pendency of another action. F.R.C.P. 12 *599 (b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441 .
The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.
How later courts describe this case
No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.
Cited by 1 case
View all citing references →Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.