1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.Supp.
  4. 290 F.Supp.
  5. 290 F.Supp. 715 (1968)
 

COMMERCE REPORTING COMPANY v. PURETEC, INC.

No. 68 Civ. 1746.

290 F.Supp. 715 (1968)

COMMERCE REPORTING COMPANY, Inc. and Edward Grant, Plaintiffs, v. PURETEC, INC., Ronald Purer, Inc., Philip Purer, Ronald Purer, David Jordan, V T R, Inc., and Frederic H. Gould, Defendants.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 31, 1968.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Donald F. X. Finn, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Herrick, Feinstein, Rossman & Mendelson, New York City, for defendants Puretec, Inc., Ronald Purer, Inc., Philip Purer, Ronald Purer, VTR, Inc. and Frederic H. Gould; Edward M. Abramson, New York City, of counsel.

MANSFIELD, District Judge.

Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 12(b), F.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the complaint on the grounds that the Court lacks jurisdiction over the subject matter and the complaint fails to state a cause of action is granted, with leave to file an amended complaint.

The complaint contains two claims for relief, invoking federal question jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1337, based on...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases