From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Seely v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. of Cincinnati

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
Mar 24, 1954
15 F.R.D. 469 (E.D. Pa. 1954)

Summary

permitting addition of plaintiffs by amendment where same transaction involved, new plaintiffs could have joined originally in suit, and defendant not prejudiced

Summary of this case from Cicchetti v. Lucey

Opinion

         Individual plaintiffs brought action against corporate defendant. A motion was made to amend by adding corporations as additional parties plaintiff. The District Court, William E. Kirkpatrick, C. J., held that since claims of corporations, which were sought to be added as additional parties plaintiff, arose from precisely the same transaction as claim of individual plaintiffs, and since most, if not all, of the questions of law and fact involved were common to all claims, and since joinder of corporations as plaintiffs in original action would have been entirely proper, motion should be granted.

         Amendment allowed.

          Jacoby & Maxmin, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiffs.

          J. Paul Erwin, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.


          KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.

         The defendant points out that to allow the amendment would result in adding new parties having different causes of action. That is strictly true, but it is not a valid objection. The claims of the corporations arose from precisely the same transaction as that of the individual plaintiffs and most, if not all, of the questions of law and fact involved are common to all the claims. The joinder of the corporations in the original action would have been entirely proper, Sporia v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 3 Cir., 143 F.2d 105 and no reason is perceived why they should not be added now. Rule 1, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 28 U.S.C. provides that the Rules shall be construed to secure the ‘ just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action’, and the allowance of this amendment is, in the judgment of the Court, the best way to obtain that result. It is difficult to see how the defendant can be harmed. If it desires a severance in order to file a proper third-party complaint, it can have it, under the Sporia case. There is nothing to prevent its filing separate interrogatories directed to the respective plaintiffs.

         The amendment will be allowed.


Summaries of

Seely v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. of Cincinnati

United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania
Mar 24, 1954
15 F.R.D. 469 (E.D. Pa. 1954)

permitting addition of plaintiffs by amendment where same transaction involved, new plaintiffs could have joined originally in suit, and defendant not prejudiced

Summary of this case from Cicchetti v. Lucey
Case details for

Seely v. Cleveland Wrecking Co. of Cincinnati

Case Details

Full title:SEELY et ux. v. CLEVELAND WRECKING CO. OF CINCINNATI.

Court:United States District Court, E. D. Pennsylvania

Date published: Mar 24, 1954

Citations

15 F.R.D. 469 (E.D. Pa. 1954)

Citing Cases

Maynard, Merel & Co., Inc. v. Carcioppolo

          Accordingly we grant leave to amend by adding the three new parties plaintiff because their claims…

Joint School Dist. No. One of Villages of Menomonee Falls, Butler and Lannon, Waukesha County, Wisconsin v. Brodd Const. Co.

It is proper to permit a plaintiff to amend his pleadings to add its subrogees as parties plaintiff. E.…