From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rosenberg Brothers Co., Inc. v. Arnold

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 10, 1960
283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960)

Opinion

No. 16762.

October 10, 1960.

Johnson Stanton, Marshall A. Staunton, Gardiner Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellants.

Severson, Zang, Werson, Berke Larson, Nathan R. Berke, David C. Bull, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee.

Before CHAMBERS and MERRILL, Circuit Judges, and BOWEN, District Judge.


In view of the extreme liberality generally in favoring amendments to pleadings under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the general policy thereunder of wrapping in one bundle all matters concerning the same subject matter, we hold it was error not to let appellant's amended counterclaim stay in the pleadings.

The appellee says the counterclaim is "delay" and "more delay." The trial court perhaps was so impressed. If henceforward the appellant-defendant should be guilty of delaying tactics, the trial court has a number of available sanctions. And, in view of the leniency in permitting reinstatement, we do say that the defendant has an obligation to press for a speedy and early determination of the cause.

The final order dismissing the amended counterclaim is reversed.


Summaries of

Rosenberg Brothers Co., Inc. v. Arnold

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Oct 10, 1960
283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960)
Case details for

Rosenberg Brothers Co., Inc. v. Arnold

Case Details

Full title:ROSENBERG BROTHERS CO., Inc., a corporation, Arnold-Hoover, Incorporated…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

Date published: Oct 10, 1960

Citations

283 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1960)

Citing Cases

Roberts v. Long

In general, "Rule 15's policy of favoring amendments to pleadings should be applied with 'extreme…

Zipperer v. Premera Blue Cross Blue Shield of Alaska

Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). United States v. Webb, 655 F.2d 977, 979 (9th Cir. 1981) (quoting Rosenberg Bros. &…