Aktiebolaget Stille-Werner v. Stille-Scanlan, Inc., 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973 (S.D.N.Y. 1940). · Go Syfert
Search
Aktiebolaget Stille-Werner v. Stille-Scanlan, Inc., 1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973 (S.D.N.Y. 1940). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
6 citation events (1 in the last 25 years) across 4 distinct courts.
Strongest positive: Kalter v. Keyfactor, Inc. (casd, 2022-11-07)
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Kalter v. Keyfactor, Inc.
S.D. Cal. · 2022 · confidence medium
“The countervailing approach is that plaintiff must first 23 allege specific facts sufficient to support a claim for punitive damages.” E.E.O.C., 258 24 25 26 27 1 Because this Order resolves Plaintiff’s entitlement to the requested documents to establish punitive damages, the Court does not address Plaintiff’s contention that the 28 1 F.R.D. at 395 (holding that plaintiff was entitled to punitive damages discovery under 2 either approach). 3 Multiple decisions from this District have followed the majority approach.
cited Cited "see" North Poudre Irrigation Co. v. Hinderlider
Colo. · 1944 · signal: see · confidence high
See, Aktiebolaget Stille-Werner v. Stille-Scanlon, 1 F.R.D. 395 , and Bender v. Connor, 28 F. Supp. 903 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AKTIEBOLAGET STILLE-WERNER
v.
STILLE-SCANLAN, Inc.
District Court, S.D. New York.
Jun 20, 1940.
1940 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1973
Cravath, de Gersdorff, Swaine & Wood, of New York City (John F. Harding, of New York City, of counsel), for plaintiff., Satterlee & Canfield, of New York City (John Vaughan Groner, of New York City, of counsel), for defendant.
Mandelbaum.
Published
MANDELBAUM, District Judge.

This is a motion by plaintiff for a more definite statement of an amended answer and counterclaim filed by defendant. In addition, plaintiff requests that defendant be required to set forth in separately stated and numbered paragraphs the affirmative allegations contained in specified paragraphs of the answer.

I think that the motion must be granted so far as it requests that defendant be required to set forth with particularity the averments of the pleading which defendant deems to be incorporated by reference into paragraph 16. This paragraph is denominated a counterclaim and under Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, plaintiff must reply to it. In its opening statement it sets forth: “For a counterclaim herein defendant repeats and realleges all of the allegations contained in this amended answer and counterclaim and further alleges.”

A logical answer is impracticable to a counterclaim pleaded in this manner. Many of the allegations which are thus incorporated by reference are scattered through paragraphs which in part deny allegations of the complaint. In addition, some of the paragraphs incorporated by references themselves contain incorporations of preceding paragraphs of the answer. It would seem to be an almost impossible task to prepare an understandable answer to such a pleading. I shall, therefore, require defendant to state the particular allegations which he deems to be incorporated into the counterclaim and to the extent that these allegations are paragraphs which themselves incorporate other parts of the answer, he should also designate what is purported to be incorporated into these paragraphs. In order to meet these requirements, defendant may serve a further amended answer and counterclaim within ten days of the date of the order to be entered upon this motion.

I think that this disposition of the motion will cure the defects existing in the answer. Apart from the counterclaim, plaintiff has no duty to file a further reply to the defenses (Rule 7(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure) and the defects existing in the counterclaim are the only ones which might prejudice plaintiff. Except as indicated, therefore, the motion is otherwise denied.