Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc.

15 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Plant

    56 F.R.D. 613 (W.D. Ark. 1972)   Cited 3 times

    The Court concludes that the issue on the instant motion should be determined by the application of Rule 13 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.           The identical question was considered by the district judge in the United States District Court, N.D.Illinois, Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, D.C., 16 F.R.D. 15. There the plaintiffs prevailed and a decree was entered October 16, 1946.

  2. North Georgia Finishing v. Di-Chem

    127 Ga. App. 593 (Ga. Ct. App. 1972)   Cited 2 times

    This does not do away with the requirement stated in paragraph (1) as to particularity. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 16 FRD 15, 17 (20 FR Serv. 13, 15). In that case it was said "Is the motion a pleading?

  3. Pry v. Norton Hosps.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:17-CV-00777-RGJ (W.D. Ky. Feb. 24, 2020)

    In re Boyer, 108 B.R. 19, 25 (Bankr. N.D.N.Y. 1988) ("Fed. R. Bankr. P. 9027(a)(3) directs that the time for filing a removal petition for this post-petition fraud action is the shorter of thirty days after receipt of the initial pleading or summons. While compliance might at first appear awkward when the removal proponent is the plaintiff in the action sought to be removed, the Court finds that, given 28 U.S.C. § 1452(a)'s extension of removal to 'a party', an initial pleading includes an answer."); see also Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 16 F.R.D. 15, 17 (N.D. Ill. 1954) ("A motion is not a pleading." (citation omitted)).

  4. ZF Steering Sys., LLC v. Busche Enter. Div., Inc.

    CAUSE NO.: 1:12-CV-316-TLS (N.D. Ind. May. 2, 2013)   Cited 1 times
    Finding that a crossclaim—brought by a defendant against whom the case had been stayed—against a former co-defendant who had been dismissed from the case was not properly before the court because of the stay against the defendant and because the crossclaim was not brought as part of a pleading

    See N. Valley Commc'ns., LLC v. Qwest Commc'ns. Co., No. CIV. 11-4052-KES, 2012 WL 523685, at *2 (D.S.D. Feb. 16, 2012) ("Because a counterclaim is not a stand alone pleading, it must be stated within a pleading.") (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(b)); Primerica Life Ins. Co. v. Davila, No. 1:10-CV-1924 AWI SMS, 2011 WL 643395, at *3 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 17, 2011) (calling what purported to be an amended counterclaim "a nullity . . . because counterclaims are part of other pleadings"); Great Lakes Intellectual Prop. Ltd. v. Saker Int'l, Inc., No. 1:04-CV-608, 2008 WL 148965, at *3 (W.D. Mich. Jan. 11, 2008) (citing Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 16 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Ill. 1954)) ("a counterclaim is asserted only as part of another pleading"). Where filing an answer or an amended answer is appropriate, a court may construe a request to file a counterclaim as a request for leave to file an answer or an amended answer "[f]or purposes of efficiency."

  5. Kinter v. Boltz

    Case No. 3:12-cv-85 (S.D. Ohio May. 22, 2012)

    Defendant Boltz has not properly brought her counterclaims. Counterclaims must be asserted in a pleading, i.e., an Answer. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 13; Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 16 F.R.D. 15, 18 (1954); see e.g., MedChoice Fin., LLC v. ADS Alliance Data Systems, Inc., ___ F. Supp.2d _, No. 2:11-cv-212, 2012 WL 748622, at *1 (S.D. Ohio Mar. 8, 2012). Additionally, because twenty one days have passed since Defendant Boltz served her Answer, she must seek leave of Court in order to amend her Answer to add counterclaims.

  6. Gr. Lakes Intellectual Prop. Limited v. Sakar Intl

    Case No. 1:04-cv-608 (W.D. Mich. Dec. 14, 2007)

    Rather, as Rule 13(a) makes clear, a counterclaim is asserted only as part of another pleading. See Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 16 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D. Ill. 1954). Plaintiffs' argument is based upon the incorrect assumption that a counterclaim is a pleading separate from the answer, for which separate leave was necessary. In reality, the counterclaim is part of the answer.

  7. Johnson v. Anderson

    Civil Action 4:03-CV-1355-Y (N.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2004)   Cited 7 times

    The rule certainly does not countenance a "reply" to a motion. Cf. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, 16 F.R.D. 15, 17 (N.D. Ill. 1954) (distinguishing the portion of Rule 7(a) on "Pleadings" from Rule 7(b) on "Motions," and noting that a "motion is not a pleading"). Thus, after Schultea, it appears to this Court that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is no longer viable.

  8. D'Acquisto v. Washington

    640 F. Supp. 594 (N.D. Ill. 1986)   Cited 70 times
    Holding that claims brought by Chicago police officers against the City of Chicago and other city officials were not preempted by the LMRA even though they involved the interpretation of collective bargaining agreements because “municipal governments, as arms of the state, are not employers under the Labor Management Relations Act and so are not covered by it”

    Further, a motion is not normally a pleading. Bigelow v. RICO Radio Pictures, Inc., 16 F.R.D. 15, 17 (N.D.Ill. 1954). Even the liberal construction policies of the Federal Rules have their limits.

  9. Sears, Sucsy Co. v. Insurance Company of No. Amer.

    392 F. Supp. 398 (N.D. Ill. 1975)   Cited 21 times
    Applying Illinois law

    These are clearly beyond the scope of a Rule 60(b) motion. See Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 16 F.R.D. 15, 18 (N.D.Ill. 1954). Therefore, it is ordered that plaintiff's motion to rehear and deny Ben B. Stein's motion for summary judgment is denied.

  10. Taylor v. Allis-Chalmers Manufacturing Company

    320 F. Supp. 1381 (E.D. Pa. 1969)   Cited 20 times

    Rule 7, Fed.R.Civ.P.; Rekeweg v. Federal Mut. Ins. Co., N.D.Ind. 1961, 27 F.R.D. 431; 64 Columbia Law Review 1123, at page 1127; 9 Wigmore, Evidence §§ 2588— 2597; 4 Id. § 1058. Cf. Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., N.D.Ill. 1954, 16 F.R.D. 15; Wholesale Supply Co., Inc. v. South Chester Tube Co., E.D.Pa. 1957, 20 F.R.D. 310. Moreover, they did not have sufficient formality or conclusiveness to be considered judicial admissions.