From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Dirk Ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co. of Delaware

United States District Court, S.D. California, Northern Division
Dec 31, 1940
1 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 1940)

Opinion

Action for injunction by Dirk ter Haar against the Seaboard Oil Company of Delaware, a corporation, the Kettlemen North Dome Association, and others. On motion of the Kettleman North Dome Association to dismiss.

Motion denied.

Chandler & Wright and Oliver S. Northcote, all of Los Angeles, Cal., for plaintiff.

George W. Nilsson, of Los Angeles, Cal., for defendant Kettleman North Dome Ass'n.


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 (b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441.

The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association to dismiss is denied.


Summaries of

Dirk Ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co. of Delaware

United States District Court, S.D. California, Northern Division
Dec 31, 1940
1 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 1940)
Case details for

Dirk Ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co. of Delaware

Case Details

Full title:DIRK TER HAAR v. SEABOARD OIL CO. OF DELAWARE et al.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. California, Northern Division

Date published: Dec 31, 1940

Citations

1 F.R.D. 598 (S.D. Cal. 1940)

Citing Cases

Woods v. Parsons

Besides, by Rule 8(c), the statute of frauds is expressly included among the affirmative defenses which ‘ in…

Perrott v. United States Banking Corp.

The authorities are divided as to whether the statute of limitations and laches questions may be raised on a…