§Why CasetextPricing

Crow v. Wolpoff & Abramson, LLP

MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION to Strike 8 Answer to Complaint Sixth Defense

17 Cited authorities

  1. Wyshak v. City Nat. Bank

    607 F.2d 824 (9th Cir. 1979)   Cited 645 times
    Holding that plaintiff was not prejudiced by assertion of statute of limitations defense in amended answer because the defense would have been "effective at the outset of [plaintiff's] suit."

  2. Lunsford v. United States

    570 F.2d 221 (8th Cir. 1977)   Cited 389 times
    Holding that filed claims were insufficient because "[n]ot all the claimants were identifiable; none of the named plaintiffs asserted authority to present claims on behalf of the unnamed class members; and no sum certain was stated with respect to the class claim so that the government could evaluate the claim for possible settlement."

  3. Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd.

    647 F.2d 200 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 188 times
    In Stabilisierungsfonds Fur Wein v. Kaiser Stuhl Wine Distributors Pty. Ltd., 647 F.2d 200, 209 USPQ 633 (D.C. Cir. 1981), in an action for trademark infringement, two German plaintiffs sought to hale an Australian wine producer, its Australian subsidiary, a New York importer, and a District of Columbia liquor store into the District Court for the District of Columbia.

  4. Gordon v. Unifund CCR Partners

    345 F.3d 1028 (8th Cir. 2003)   Cited 76 times
    Holding that it was an abuse of discretion for the district court to impose sanctions when the moving party failed to comply with the "safe harbor" provision of Rule 11

  5. Federal Deposit Ins. Corp. v. Carlson

    698 F. Supp. 178 (D. Minn. 1988)   Cited 41 times
    Finding the rationale of adverse domination cases persuasive although Minnesota had neither rejected nor accepted the theory

  6. Yash Raj Films (USA) Inc. v. Atlantic Video

    Case No, 03 C 7069 (N.D. Ill. May. 27, 2004)   Cited 10 times

    Case No, 03 C 7069 May 27, 2004 MEMORANDUM OPINION GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT-THIRD PARTY PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE MARK FILIP, District Judge Before the Court is Defendant-Third Party Plaintiff Rajesh Bansal's ("Bansal") motion to strike all of Third-Party Defendant Sharad Shah's ("Shah") affirmative defenses. Bansal variously alleges that the affirmative defenses do not meet the pleading requirements of Fed, R, Civ, P, 8(a) ("Rule 8(a)'"), that they are conclusory allegations

  7. Fredin v. Sharp

    176 F.R.D. 304 (D. Minn. 1997)   Cited 12 times
    In Fredin v. Sharp, 176 F.R.D. 304, 309 (D. Minn. 1997), in deciding a Motion to Amend an Answer, we noted that it was not clear "whether the Plaintiff's Minnesota statutory claims survive[d] the parties' designation of South Dakota law."

  8. Resolution Trust Corp. v. Greenwood

    798 F. Supp. 1391 (D. Minn. 1992)   Cited 14 times

    No. Civ. 4-92-2. July 20, 1992. John Eugene Yanish, John Paul Martin, Petersen, Tews Squires, Minneapolis, Minn., Mark S. Bernstein, Ray G. Rezner, Wendi Sloane Weitman, Elyse M. Tish, Meribeth Mermall, Barack, Ferrazzano, Kirschbaum Perlman, Chicago, Ill., April A. Breslaw, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff. Bruce A. Rasmussen, Scott R. Carlson, Bruce A. Rasmussen Associates, Minneapolis, Minn., for defendant John Barry. William Richard Busch, St. Paul, Minn., for Thomas P. Fitzgibbon, Sr. and John

  9. Semmelman v. Mellor

    Civil File No. 05-644 (MJD/AJB) (D. Minn. Jan. 13, 2006)   Cited 2 times
    Concluding that the defendant's UCC filings against the plaintiffs were baseless where, as in this case, neither plaintiff had ever been a debtor to the defendant, neither plaintiff had ever authorized the defendant to file any UCC financing statement or signed a valid security agreement with the defendant, and the filings were not filed in the correct state

  10. Agran v. Isaacs

    306 F. Supp. 945 (N.D. Ill. 1969)   Cited 3 times

    No. 69 C 773. December 9, 1969. Albert E. Jenner, Jr., Samuel W. Block, Joan M. Hall, Jenner Block, Chicago, Ill., for defendants Frank V. McCullough, Philip E. Calo, Louis Goldblatt, George S. Harris, Bailey K. Howard, Ronald A. Landsman, David X. Meyers, Charles H. Sethness, Jr., Civic Capital Corporation, Charles F. Biersborn, Hugh M. Driscoll, Harold H. Stout, Joseph E. Knight, Richard A. Rauch, Harry H. Semrow and Leonard C. Tharnstrom. Joel L. Miller, Chicago, Ill., for defendant Theodore J

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 347,669 times   925 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 157,162 times   196 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Rule 11 - Signing Pleadings, Motions, and Other Papers; Representations to the Court; Sanctions

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 11   Cited 35,955 times   145 Legal Analyses
    Holding an "unrepresented party" to the same standard as an attorney

  14. Rule 28 - Persons Before Whom Depositions May Be Taken

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 28   Cited 18,401 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Requiring appellant's argument to contain citations to authorities

  15. Section 1692 - Congressional findings and declaration of purpose

    15 U.S.C. § 1692   Cited 15,028 times   139 Legal Analyses
    Finding that abusive debt-collection practices lead to "personal bankruptcies," "marital instability," "loss of jobs," and "invasions of individual privacy"

  16. Section 1692k - Civil liability

    15 U.S.C. § 1692k   Cited 6,125 times   65 Legal Analyses
    Holding debt collectors civilly liable for illicit debt collection practices

  17. Section 1692g - Validation of debts

    15 U.S.C. § 1692g   Cited 3,449 times   68 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth requirements for disputing a debt