Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

1 F.R.D. 220

Robbins v. Sperry Corp.

U.S. District Court

Decided February 29, 1940

U.S. District Court · decided 1940-02-29

Relies on Young v. Southern Pac. Co.

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1940-02-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 5 later decisions — most recently December 1980

2 federal appellate · 1 state decisions

2019401950196019701980decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

COXE, District Judge.

¶1This suit is identical with the Piccard suit now pending in this court. It has no possible justification at this time. The plaintiffs do not have an absolute right to discontinue as against the removing defendant. See Young v. Southern Pac. Co., 2 Cir., 25 F.2d 630. Moreover, Rule 23(c), Rules of Civil Procedure for District Courts, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, provides that a class action shall not be dismissed or compromised without the approval of the court. I, therefore, deny the motion of the plaintiffs for leave to discontinue as against the defendant Standard Capital Company. It necessarily follows that the plaintiffs’ motion to remand is also denied. The original and amended complaints fail to allege that the plaintiffs were stockholders at the time of the transactions complained of, as required by Rule 23(b). These are fatal defects. The motions of the defendants to dismiss are, therefore, granted.

¶2The motions of the plaintiffs for leave to’ discontinue as against the defendant Standard Capital Company, and to remand, are denied. The motions of the defendants to dismiss the original and amended complaints are granted.

/1/frd/220 · .json · Public domain