ter Haar v. Seaboard Oil Co.
DIRK TER HAAR v. SEABOARD OIL CO OF DELAWARE
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Beaumont (author)
Analysis
The court considered a motion to dismiss filed by defendant Kettleman North Dome Association. The court denied the motion, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action for injunctive relief and that the asserted defenses must be raised in the answer rather than by motion.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion to dismiss denied“The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.” | agree with court The court correctly applied the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure by determining that the defenses of laches, statute of limitations, and pendency of another action are affirmative defenses that must be pleaded in the answer under Rule 8(c), not raised in a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b). The court also found that the complaint sufficiently pleaded a cause of action for injunctive relief based on the cited California authorities. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly applies Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c) and 12(b) to distinguish between grounds for a motion to dismiss and affirmative defenses that must be pleaded in the answer. The court cites sufficient authority to support both the sufficiency of the complaint for injunctive relief and the procedural requirement regarding affirmative defenses. The reasoning is direct and legally sound for the procedural posture.
Opinion — Beaumont
BEAUMONT, District Judge.
Viewing the complaint as a whole, the court is of the opinion that a cause of action for injunctive relief has been-pleaded. Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corporation, 38 Cal.App.2d 11, 100 P.2d 528; United Railroads v. Superior Court, 172 Cal. 80, 155 P. 463; Kellogg v. King, 114 Cal. 378, 46 P. 166, 55 Am.St.Rep. 74.
The defenses of laches, stale demands and the statute of limitations may not be asserted by motion to dismiss, but should be set forth affirmatively in defendant’s answer (Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 8(c), 12(b), 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c. Patsavouras v. Garfield, D.C., 34 F. Supp. 406; Munzer v. Swedish American Line, D.C., 30 F.Supp. 789; Holmberg v. Hannaford, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 216; Raker v. United States, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 432; Baker v. Sisk, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 232; Nordman v. Johnson City, D.C., 1 F.R.D. 51), and that same rule prevails as to the defense of pendency of another action. F.R.C.P. 12 *599(b); Sproul v. Gambone, D.C., 34 F.Supp. 441.
The motion of defendant Kettleman North Dome Association- to dismiss is denied.
Cites, in this corpus
- Bourdieu v. Seaboard Oil Corp. Civ. 2289 · 1940-03-13
- United Railroads of San Francisco v. Superior Court of San Francisco S. F. No. 7565. In Bank. · 1916-02-09
- Kellogg v. King Sac. No. 224 · 1896-09-26