§Why CasetextPricing

Pinks v. M & T Bank Corp.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 131 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings Dismissing Conterclaim Mistakenly Designated as "Affirmative Defense". . Document

10 Cited authorities

  1. Reiter v. Cooper

    507 U.S. 258 (1993)   Cited 731 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding district court has discretion “either to retain jurisdiction or ... to dismiss the case”

  2. Jones v. Ford Motor Credit Co.

    358 F.3d 205 (2d Cir. 2004)   Cited 345 times
    Holding that § 1367 has "displaced . . . whatever validity inhered in the earlier view that a permissive counterclaim requires independent jurisdiction"

  3. Coplay Cement Co., Inc v. Willis Paul Group

    983 F.2d 1435 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 83 times
    Holding that two purchase orders were two separate contracts, where each transaction was "complete in itself"

  4. Hicklin v. Onyx Acceptance Corp.

    970 A.2d 244 (Del. 2009)   Cited 20 times
    Holding that a secured party must provide information on the method, manner and place of sale to establish commercially reasonable disposition of collateral

  5. Hadar v. Concordia Yacht Builders, Inc.

    886 F. Supp. 1082 (S.D.N.Y. 1995)   Cited 29 times
    Rejecting yacht owner's tort and warranty claims based on argument that defective epoxy resin caused delamination of yacht's hull because plaintiff sought only economic losses

  6. Bozsi Ltd. Partnership v. Lynott

    676 F. Supp. 505 (S.D.N.Y. 1987)   Cited 30 times
    Finding allegation of recklessness sufficient where accountant prepared and certified financial statements

  7. H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co. v. Crawford

    No. 11-3448 (C.D. Ill. Mar. 19, 2013)

    11-3448 03-19-2013 H.D. SMITH WHOLESALE DRUG CO., a Delaware Corporation, Plaintiff, v. DENNIS CRAWFORD d/b/a CRAWFORD PHARMACIES, Defendant. SUE E. MYERSCOUGH OPINION SUE E. MYERSCOUGH, U.S. District Judge: This matter comes before the Court on Plaintiff/ Counterdefendant H.D. Smith Wholesale Drug Co.'s ("H.D. Smith") Motion to Dismiss counterclaims for breach of contract (Count I) and fraud (Count II) alleged by Defendant/Counterclaimant Dennis Crawford, doing business as Crawford Pharmacies ("Crawford")

  8. Middletown Plaza Associates v. Dora Dale of Middletown, Inc.

    621 F. Supp. 1163 (D. Conn. 1985)   Cited 10 times
    Discussing authority for the proposition that "both set-offs and recoupments are to be pleaded as counterclaims rather than affirmative defenses."

  9. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 162,084 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  10. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 64,200 times   79 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"