From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 1, 1942
3 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)

Opinion

         Action by Evelyn Barrom and another against Roux Laboratories, Inc., and others. On motion by defendants to strike certain allegations of the complaint.

         Motion denied.

          Abraham D. Shackton, of New York City, for plaintiffs.

          Glenney, Mathews & Hampton, of New York City, (Walter L. Glenney, of New York City, of counsel), for defendants.


          COXE, District Judge.

          It cannot be said at this time that the challenged allegations of the complaint have no bearing on the subject matter of the action. That is a question which should properly be left to the trial judge to determine when evidence is offered. Motions to strike are not favored, and I cannot see that the defendants will in any way be prejudiced by allowing the allegations to stand.

         The motion of the defendants to strike is denied.


Summaries of

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York
Oct 1, 1942
3 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)
Case details for

Barrom v. Roux Laboratories, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:BARROM et al. v. ROUX LABORATORIES, Inc., et al.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York

Date published: Oct 1, 1942

Citations

3 F.R.D. 175 (S.D.N.Y. 1942)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Patterson

This is copied after Federal Rule 12 (f), under which it is held that the motion should be granted only when…

United States v. Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Inc.

Certainly it is not so clear that the defense is insufficient as a matter of law as to require the Court in…