Anderson v. Francis I. duPont & Co.

2 Citing briefs

  1. Bryant et al v. Quibids, LLC. et al

    RESPONSE

    Filed April 20, 2011

    The unmistakable purpose for the Rule is to promote trial convenience through the avoidance of multiple lawsuits, extra expense to the parties, and loss of time to the Court and the litigants appearing before it. Anderson v. Frances I. duPont & Company, 291 F. Supp. 705, 711 (D. Minn. 1968). Indeed, it is generally held that Rule 20(a) should be liberally interpreted and applied in practice when consistent with convenience in the disposition of litigation.

  2. Lane et al v. Vasquez

    Memorandum in opposition to motion re partial dismissal

    Filed November 16, 2005

    “[U}nder the rules, the impulse is toward entertaining the broadest possible scope of action consistent with fairness to the parties; joinder of claims, parties, and remedies is strongly Case 1:05-cv-01414-EGS Document 10 Filed 11/16/2005 Page 15 of 27 16 encouraged." United Mine Workers of America v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 724 (1966); M.K. v. Tenet, 216 F.R.D. 133, 137-138 (D.D.C. 2002), citing Anderson v. Frances I. DuPont & Co., 291 F. Supp. 705, 711 (D. Minn. 1968). The determination of a motion to sever is within the discretion of the trial court.