DOCSLIB.ORG

United States District Court 9 Eastern District of California 10 11 J & J Sports Productions, Inc., Case No

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
United States District Court 9 Eastern District of California 10 11 J & J Sports Productions, Inc., Case No Case 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/26/13 Page 1 of 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 J & J SPORTS PRODUCTIONS, INC., CASE NO. 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO 12 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S Plaintiff, MOTION TO STRIKE 13 DEFENDANT'S FIRST AMENDED v. ANSWER 14 (Doc. 10) 15 RONALD DEAN BEAR, individually and dba BEAR'S DEN SPORTS BAR AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 16 DELI, DENYING IN PART PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO STRIKE 17 Defendant. DEFENDANT'S AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES 18 (Docs. 7) 19 / 20 I. INTRODUCTION 21 On November 19, 2010, Plaintiff J & J Sports Productions, Inc. ("Plaintiff") filed a 22 complaint against Defendant Ronald Dean Bear, individually and dba Bear's Den Sports Bar and Deli 23 ("Defendant"), alleging violations of 47 U.S.C. §§ 553 and 605, as well as causes of action for 24 conversion and for violation of the California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et. seq. 25 The suit is based on Defendant's alleged unlawful interception, receipt, and exhibition of "Star 26 Power,": Floyd Mayweather, Jr. v. Victor Ortiz Championship Fight Program (the "Program"), a 27 fighting match that was broadcast on Saturday, September 17, 2011. (Cmplt., ¶ 14.) 28 Case 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/26/13 Page 2 of 12 1 Plaintiff's complaint alleges that it was granted the "exclusive nationwide commercial 2 distribution (closed-circuit) rights" to the Program. (Doc. 1, ¶ 14.) Plaintiff subsequently entered 3 into sublicensing agreements with commercial entities in the hospitality industry, including 4 restaurants, authorizing the sublicensee to publicly exhibit the Program. (Cmplt., ¶ 15.) Defendant 5 allegedly "unlawfully intercept[ed], receive[d], publish[ed], divulge[d], display[ed], and/or 6 exhibit[ed] the Program at the time of transmission at his commercial establishment in Avenal, 7 California." (Cmplt, ¶ 17.) 8 On November 14, 2012, Defendant filed an answer to the complaint asserting eight 9 affirmative defenses. (Doc. 5.) On December 4, 2012, Plaintiff filed a motion to strike all of 10 Defendant's affirmative defenses arguing that they were insufficient. (Doc. 7.) On December 24, 11 2012, Defendant filed an amended answer asserting four affirmative defenses. (Doc. 9.) The Court 12 set both motions to be heard on February 27, 2013. (Doc. 11.) On February 26, 2013, the matters 13 were deemed suitable for decision without oral argument, the February 27, 2013, hearing was 14 vacated and Plaintiff's motions were taken under submission. For the reasons set forth below, 15 Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Plaintiff's First Amended Answer is GRANTED, and Plaintiff's motion 16 to strike Defendant's affirmative defenses in the original answer is GRANTED in part and DENIED 17 in part. 18 II. DISCUSSION 19 A. Legal Standard 20 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), the court is permitted to "strike from a 21 pleading an insufficient defense or any redundant, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter." 22 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f). A defense may be insufficient as a matter of pleading or as a matter of 23 substance. Sec. People, Inc., Classic Woodworking, LLC, No. C-04-3133 MMC, 2005 WL 645592, 24 at *2 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2005). An affirmative defense may be considered insufficiently pled where 25 it fails to provide plaintiff with fair notice of the defense asserted. Wyshak v. City Nat'l Bank, 26 607 F.2d 824, 827 (9th Cir. 1979). An affirmative defense is insufficient as a matter of law where 27 "there are no questions of fact, that any questions of law are clear and not in dispute, and that under 28 no set of circumstances could the defense succeed." Ganley v. Cnty. of San Mateo, No. C06-3923 2 Case 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/26/13 Page 3 of 12 1 TEH, 2007 WL 902551, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2007). A matter is "immaterial" if it "has no 2 essential or important relationship to the claim for relief or the defenses being pleaded." Fantasy, 3 Inc. v. Fogerty, 984 F.2d 1524, 1527 (9th Cir. 1993), rev'd on other grounds, 510 U.S. 517 (1994). 4 As motions to strike a defense as insufficient are disfavored, they will not be granted if the 5 insufficiency of the defense is not clearly apparent. See 5C Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, 6 Federal Practice and Procedure § 1381 (3d ed.) In ruling on a motion to strike, a "court[] may not 7 resolve disputed and substantial factual or legal issues . " Whittlestone, Inc. v. Handi-Craft Co., 8 618 F.3d 970, 973 (9th Cir. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the purpose of 9 pleading an affirmative defense is simply to give fair notice to plaintiff of the defense being asserted, 10 leave to amend should be freely granted in absence of prejudice to the opposing party. Wyshak, 11 607 F.2d at 826- 27. 12 B. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's First Amended Answer 13 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a) provides the following, in relevant part: 14 (1) Amending as a Matter of Course. A party may amend its pleading once as a matter of course within: 15 (A) 21 days after serving it, or 16 (B) if the pleading is one to which a responsive pleading is required, 21 17 days after service of a responsive pleading or 21 days after service of a motion under Rule 12(b), (e), or (f), whichever is earlier. 18 (2) Other Amendments. In all other cases, a party may amend its pleading only 19 with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave. The court should freely give leave when justice so requires. 20 21 Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(1)-(2). 22 Here, Defendant filed his original answer on November 14, 2012. (Doc. 5.) Pursuant to Rule 23 15(a)(1)(A), Defendant was entitled to file an amended answer as a matter of right until December 24 5, 2012. However, Plaintiff did not file a First Amended Answer ("FAA") until December 24, 2012. 25 As Defendant did not obtain leave of court or a stipulation from Plaintiff, Defendant's amended the 26 answer as a matter of right is untimely under Rule 15(a)(1)(A).1 27 1 Defendant concedes in his opposition that the amended answer "was filed more than 21 days after the original 28 answer was filed." (Doc. 13, 2:19-20.) 3 Case 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/26/13 Page 4 of 12 1 Moreover, because the answer is not a pleading to which a responsive pleading is required 2 (see Fed. R. Civ. P. 7(a)(7) (reply to an answer not permitted unless ordered by the court)), 3 Defendant is not permitted to amend the answer as a matter of right under Rule 15(a)(1)(B). 4 Defendant's FAA, therefore, could only be filed by Plaintiff's written consent or with the court's 5 leave; as discussed above, Defendant obtained neither. Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). As such, Plaintiff's 6 motion to strike Defendant's December 24, 2012, FAA is GRANTED. 7 C. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike Defendant's Affirmative Defenses in the Original Answer 8 In his original answer, Plaintiff asserted the following eight affirmative defenses: (1) Failure 9 to State Claim; (2) Plaintiff's Own Actions; (3) Defendant's Performance; (4) Acts of Others; 10 (5) Election of Remedies; (6) No Basis for Unfair Business Practice Claim; (7) No Basis for Claim 11 of Conversion; and (8) No Basis for Claim of Punitive Damages. (Doc. 5, p. 4-7.) 12 In the FAA, Plaintiff asserted four affirmative defenses: (1) Defendant's Performance; 13 (2) Acts of Others; (3) Estoppel; and (4) Election of Remedies. (Doc. 9, p. 5-6.) Defendant 14 concedes that the affirmative defenses he omitted from his original answer, i.e., Failure to State a 15 Claim, Plaintiff's Own Actions, No Basis for Unfair Business Practice Claim, No Basis for Claim 16 of Conversion, and No Basis for Claim of Punitive Damages "are essentially denials of the elements 17 of the plaintiff's complaint." (Doc. 13, 4:13-16.) In light of Defendant's concession regarding these 18 five affirmative defenses, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's motion to strike with regard to those 19 affirmative defenses. The remaining three affirmative defenses in Defendant's original answer will 20 be considered in turn below. 21 1. Prejudice to Plaintiff 22 "Given [the] disfavored status [of motions to strike], courts often require a showing of 23 prejudice by the moving party before granting the requested relief." Neilson v. Union Bank of Cal. 24 N.A., 290 F. Supp. 2d 1101, 1152 (C.D. Cal. 2003). The Court is underwhelmed by Plaintiff's 25 argument as to how it will be prejudiced by allowing these affirmative defense to stand. 26 Specifically, Plaintiff states that "[i]f the defenses are permitted to survive, Plaintiff will be 27 compelled to expend time and resources litigating irrelevant issues." (Doc. 7, 9:13-21.) As noted 28 4 Case 1:12-cv-01509-AWI-SKO Document 16 Filed 02/26/13 Page 5 of 12 1 by the district court in J&J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Vargas, 2012 WL 2919681, at *2 (D. Ariz. 2 July 17, 2012), such a conclusory statement is wholly insufficient to establish prejudice.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Law of Pleading Under the Codes of Civil Procedure. with an Introduction Briefly Explaining the Common Law and Equity System
    (Bnrnrll ^am Bt\^aa\ ICibrary Cornell University Library KF 8870.B91 The law of pleading under the codes of c 3 1924 020 173 419 Cornell University Library The original of tliis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924020173419 THE LAW OF PLEADING UNDER THE CODES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. WITH AN INTRODUCTION BRIEFLY EXPLAINING THE COMMON LAW AND EQUITY SYSTEMS OF PLEADING, AND AN ANALYTICAL INDEX, IN WHICH IS GIVEN THE CODE PROVISIONS AS TO PLEADING IN EACH OF THE STATES WHICH HAVE ADOPTED THE REFORMED PROCEDURE. BY EDWIN E. B_EYANT, DEAN OF LAW FACULTY, UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSM | BOSTON: LITTLE, BROWN, AND COMPANY 1894. : Vopyright, 1894., Br Little, Brown, and Company. Wini'atxsits P«ss John Wilson and Son, Cambridge. PREFACE. This book is intended rather as introductory to, than a substitute for, the more elaborate and exhaustive treatises on the Law of Pleading. The experience of instructors in law schools leads them very generally, it is believed, to prefer, as a first book to place in the hands of students, one that gives a clear but con- densed statement of the general principles of the given subject. With such a general outline of the field, tJie student is less likely to be confused when he enters upon particulars in case-study or in those books for lawyers' use which multiply instances where general rules are qualified by exceptions, or applied in com- plicated cases. In preparing this work, limited space has compelled brevity and much condensation ; but there has been endeavor to avoid the accompanying * danger of obscurity.
    [Show full text]
  • Election of Remedies in Missouri
    Washington University Law Review Volume 23 Issue 4 January 1938 Election of Remedies in Missouri Sigmund Barack Washington University School of Law Follow this and additional works at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Sigmund Barack, Election of Remedies in Missouri, 23 WASH. U. L. Q. 527 (1938). Available at: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol23/iss4/9 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School at Washington University Open Scholarship. It has been accepted for inclusion in Washington University Law Review by an authorized administrator of Washington University Open Scholarship. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1938] NOTES ELECTION OF REMEDIES IN MISSOURI I. INTRODUCTION Legal problems growing out of unprecedented changes in the substantive law through modern legislation have relegated to the background important and equally troublesome problems in the field of procedure. Of these, the so-called doctrine of election of remedies stands as one of the most confusing and elusive in our legal system as is attested by the hundred or more digest para- graphs concerning it in the Missouri Digest alone. The rule, as generally stated by the Missouri courts, is this: Where a party has the right to pursue one of two inconsistent remedies, and, with knowledge of all the facts, he makes his election and institutes his suit, in case the action thus begun is prosecuted to final judgment, or the plaintiff has received any- thing of value under a claim thus asserted, he cannot thereafter pursue another and inconsistent remedy.1 The definition carries with it its own limitations.
    [Show full text]
  • Election of Remedies in Texas
    SMU Law Review Volume 8 Issue 2 Article 1 1954 Election of Remedies in Texas Leslie C. Merrem Follow this and additional works at: https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr Recommended Citation Leslie C. Merrem, Election of Remedies in Texas, 8 SW L.J. 109 (1954) https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol8/iss2/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at SMU Scholar. It has been accepted for inclusion in SMU Law Review by an authorized administrator of SMU Scholar. For more information, please visit http://digitalrepository.smu.edu. SOUTHWESTERN LAW JOURNAL VOLUME VIII SPRING, 1954 NUMBER 2 ELECTION OF REMEDIES IN TEXAS Leslie C. Merrem* T SHALL be our purpose, in writing this article, to discuss the essentials of the doctrine of election of remedies and its application by the courts of Texas and to present some of the problems raised in connection therewith; to determine, if possible, when a party by electing some one remedy precludes himself from pursuing another; and to attempt whenever possible to eliminate some of the confusion resulting from the application of the doc- trine to various situations. It shall not be our purpose to cover the entire field, as that would be beyond the scope of an article of this nature; however, since the doctrine is so frequently invoked in the cases involving contracts induced by fraud, special atten- tion will be given to that field. The doctrine of election of remedies, which has been a problem child of the law for many years, may be stated simply as that doctrine of the law which holds that a party having more than one remedy growing out of the same right of action is bound by the remedy he elects to pursue.' Again, it has been said, "An election arises when one having two co-existent remedies chooses to exercise one, in which event he loses the right to thereafter ' 2 exercise the other.
    [Show full text]
  • 91 Giant Motion to Compel Election of Remedies Or Dismiss
    Case 1:15-cv-00055-JCH-LF Document 91 Filed 05/21/18 Page 1 of 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW MEXICO FRANKLIN J. MORRIS, as Personal Representative of the Wrongful Death Estate of MARCELLINO MORRIS, JR., (Deceased), Plaintiff, vs. No. 1:15-cv-00055-JCH-LF GIANT FOUR CORNERS, INC. d/b/a GIANT #7251 and ANDY RAY DENNY, an Individual, Defendants. DEFENDANT’S OPPOSED MOTION TO COMPEL ELECTION OF REMEDIES OR DISMISS FOR IMPROPER CLAIM SPLITTING Marcellino Morris, Jr. was killed in an automobile accident in December 2011. Plaintiff is prosecuting the present action in this Court seeking to recover compensatory damages for Mr. Morris’ death. At the same time, Plaintiff is seeking precisely the same damages from the identical defendants arising from the same accident in Navajo Tribal Court. But Plaintiff is not entitled to more than one recovery for the same injury. Now that this matter has a definite trial setting – and before the Court expends any more resources and the parties engage in further time- consuming and expensive preparations required to proceed to trial – this Court should compel Plaintiff to choose the forum in which he intends to proceed. Either Plaintiff must dismiss his pending action in Navajo Tribal Court and seek relief solely in this Court, or he must dismiss the present action and continue in Navajo Tribal Court where he first filed suit. To allow him simultaneously to proceed in both forums allows him impermissibly to prolong his quest for double recovery arising from but a single injury.
    [Show full text]
  • Election of Remedies--Statutory Changes
    St. John's Law Review Volume 14 Number 1 Volume 14, November 1939, Number Article 26 1 Election of Remedies--Statutory Changes Seymour C. Simon Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.stjohns.edu/lawreview This Recent Development in New York Law is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in St. John's Law Review by an authorized editor of St. John's Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ST. JOHN'S LAW REVIEW [ VOL. 14 garded the claimant as the agent of the manufacturer.6 The gen- eral rule still is that secondary boycotts are illegal and all such picket- ing will be enjoined. IlL Section 876a of the Civil Practice Act has, however, been re- sponsible for an abuse. This is illustrated by situations wherein one union has a closed shop agreement with the employer and another union pickets to obtain similar benefits for itself. The employer can not breach his contract with the first union nor can he accede to the demands of the second union. Injunctive relief is denied because of the statute holding such a situation to be a labor dispute. Mean- while the employer's business diminishes because prospective cus- tomers may be deterred from passing the picket line, either by sym- pathy for labor in general, or by embarrassment or fear. The em- ployer in such a case can do nothing but wait for the legislature to remedy the situation.
    [Show full text]
  • Procedural Control of Damages by Election of Remedies Duane W
    Hastings Law Journal Volume 12 | Issue 2 Article 4 1-1960 Procedural Control of Damages by Election of Remedies Duane W. Dresser Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Duane W. Dresser, Procedural Control of Damages by Election of Remedies, 12 Hastings L.J. 171 (1960). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_law_journal/vol12/iss2/4 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings Law Journal by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. Procedural Control of Damages By Election of Remedies By Du~xE W. DnEssER*t The lawyer who contemplates seeking redress of his client's rights is confronted with the initial problem of choosing the most effective course to enforce those rights. Although in many situations there is but one course, well-defined by law and custom, it is not unlikely that there will be, particularly in litigation arising out of contractual relations, two or more available methods of enforcing a claim. Questions which may arise in such circumstances include not only how much may be recovered but how far can pursuit of one method proceed without loss of the others, which method affords the most certain recovery, or the speediest recovery, or the least difficult recovery in terms of procedure obstacles. It is the purpose of this article to examine the rule of election of remedies as it bears upon such questions. It is hoped that some light may thereby be cast upon the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the available remedies and that some assistance may be given toward the proper selection of remedies.
    [Show full text]
  • Hartman Plastics, Inc., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : NO
    IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ______________________________ : Hartman Plastics, Inc., : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 97-CV-2679 v. : : Star International LTD-USA, : Defendant. : ______________________________: : Star International LTD-USA, : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : NO. 97-CV-2734 v. : : Hartman Plastics, Inc., : Defendant. : ______________________________: McGlynn, J. September , 1998 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION Before the court is Star International LTD-USA’s (“Star”) post-trial motion to alter or amend the judgment, or alternatively, for a new trial on damages. Hartman Plastics, Inc. (“Hartman”) opposes the motion. For the following reasons, Star’s motion will be denied. I. BACKGROUND Hartman is a manufacturer of foamboard located in Chester County, Pennsylvania. Star was Hartman’s exclusive distributor of foamboard in the Middle East. This dispute arises from a written Settlement Agreement, General Release, and Distribution Agreement ("the Agreement") reached between the parties on August 12, 1996. The Agreement made Star the exclusive distributor of Hartman foamboard in the Middle East for three and a half years. In that interval, Star had to order a specific number of Hartman foamboard containers during a series of four specified time periods, beginning with a minimum of ten containers between August 15, 1996 and April 14, 1997. On April 9 or 10, 1997, Star placed an order for the minimum ten containers, its only order in the first period. Hartman refused to fill the order on the belief that it was not genuine and Star would be unable to pay for the ten containers. Hartman then filed suit against Star claiming fraud in the inducement of the Agreement and breach of contract.
    [Show full text]
  • Remedy for Election of Remedies a Proposed Act to Abolish Election of Remedies Jay Leo Rothschild
    Cornell Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Issue 2 February 1929 Remedy for Election of Remedies A Proposed Act to Abolish Election of Remedies Jay Leo Rothschild Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Jay Leo Rothschild, Remedy for Election of Remedies A Proposed Act to Abolish Election of Remedies, 14 Cornell L. Rev. 141 (1929) Available at: http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/clr/vol14/iss2/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Cornell Law Review by an authorized administrator of Scholarship@Cornell Law: A Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A REMEDY FOR ELECTION OF REMEDIES: A PROPOSED ACT TO ABOLISH ELECTION OF REMEDIES JAY LEo R oTscmLD* "The doctrine of election of remedies, as heretofore known, is abolished. A litigant, unless estopped by his conduct, or by a former adjudication, or by law otherwise prevented, shall not be foreclosed from a determination of the merits of his cause or defense. For the purposes of this statute, a former adjudication shall include any judgment on the merits, on the facts in con- troversy, irrespective of the form of the action or the relief obtainable." The doctrine of election of remedies has long been the subject of severe and deserved criticism. Mr. Hine's article, published in the HarvardLaw Review in 1913,1 was a masterly and prophetic presenta- tion of the defects in its reasons and operation, which has been entirely justified by subsequent judicial experience.
    [Show full text]
  • A Selected Approach to Election of Remedies in Mineral Trespass Cases Jerald L
    Louisiana Law Review Volume 31 | Number 4 June 1971 A Selected Approach to Election of Remedies in Mineral Trespass Cases Jerald L. Perlman Repository Citation Jerald L. Perlman, A Selected Approach to Election of Remedies in Mineral Trespass Cases, 31 La. L. Rev. (1971) Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/lalrev/vol31/iss4/10 This Note is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Reviews and Journals at LSU Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Louisiana Law Review by an authorized editor of LSU Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1971] NOTES this situation, Congress should enact legislation giving EPA a veto power over all projects in navigable waters including water resource development projects proposed by federal agencies (especially the Corps of Engineers) and private power com- panies under federal permit. The President's Advisory Council on Executive Reorganization has recommended that this veto power be given to the proposed Department of Natural Re- sources. However, EPA with its mission-oriented structure is more suited to evaluate such problems free from the pressures of special interest groups. Robert B. Nichols, Jr. A SELEcTED APPROACH TO ELECTION OF RmvDIEs IN MINERAL TRESPASS CASES Plaintiffs brought suit for recovery of the value of minerals produced under a mineral lease granted to defendant on prop- erty claimed by plaintiffs. After a determination that plaintiffs were in fact the owners of the land in question, the court of appeal held, that plaintiffs' suit for the value of the oil produced from their property was an action in tort, subject to the pre- scription of one year, and that the only damages recoverable by plaintiffs were for the value of the oil produced during the year immediately preceding the filing of suit, less their proportionate share of drilling and operating costs for that period.
    [Show full text]
  • Choice of Remedies Charles F
    Marquette Law Review Volume 3 Article 3 Issue 4 Volume 3, Issue 4 (1919) Choice of Remedies Charles F. Millmann Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Law Commons Repository Citation Charles F. Millmann, Choice of Remedies, 3 Marq. L. Rev. 152 (1919). Available at: http://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol3/iss4/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized administrator of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. CHOICE OF REMEDIES CHARLES F. MIL.MANN, A.B., LL.B., OF THE MILWAUKEE BAR. In the practice of law the attorney is frequently confronted with two or more courses of procedure to obtain the desired re- sult. In some cases the choice of the procedure involves an election of one remedy to the exclusion of the other; while in other cases he can pursue either or both to judgment, but have only one satisfaction of the claim. This article is not intended to give a complete and full state- ment of the principles and rules governing the doctrine of election of remedies, but simply to point out in some specific cases the particular advantages of one remedy over the other; and of one course of procedure over another. The doctrine of the election of remedies applies in a situation where two causes of action arise out of the same state of facts and the injured party has the right to pursue either; but the prosecution of the one is inconsistent with the prosecution of the other.
    [Show full text]
  • The Alienability of Non-Possessory Interests Percy Bordwell
    NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW Volume 19 | Number 3 Article 1 4-1-1941 The Alienability of Non-Possessory Interests Percy Bordwell Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Percy Bordwell, The Alienability of Non-Possessory Interests, 19 N.C. L. Rev. 279 (1941). Available at: http://scholarship.law.unc.edu/nclr/vol19/iss3/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in North Carolina Law Review by an authorized administrator of Carolina Law Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. 1941] THE ALIENABILITY OF NON-POSSESSORY INTERESTS* PERCY BORDWELL** Favorable as were the common law judges to alienability, there were limits to such favor. The chose in action was not in general transferable nor the condition, nor, when it came to be recognized, the contingent remainder. Why the favor shown in the one case was withheld in the other has been the matter of much speculation. The avoidance of chain- perty and maintenance was long the accepted reason, but more funda- mental reasons have been thought to have been discovered in notions of analytical jurisprudence or in the primitiveness of the medieval mind. Further the matter has been obscured by a confusion in termi- nology. Chose in action, seisin and disseisin of chattels, property and right of property have been terms of many and sometimes mystic mean- ings. In this paper the attempt will be
    [Show full text]
  • Election of Remedies Amos S
    University of Minnesota Law School Scholarship Repository Minnesota Law Review 1922 Election of Remedies Amos S. Deinard Benedict S. Deinard Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr Part of the Law Commons Recommended Citation Deinard, Amos S. and Deinard, Benedict S., "Election of Remedies" (1922). Minnesota Law Review. 829. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/mlr/829 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the University of Minnesota Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Minnesota Law Review collection by an authorized administrator of the Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MINNESOTA LAW REVIEW ELECTION OF REMEDIES* By Amos S. DEINARD AND BENEDICT S. DEINARD IN MINNESOTA T HE foregoing, we believe, are the only authentic cases of elec- tion between remedies." They stand as the only, isolated ap- plications of the rule. In relation to them, this rule bears no necessary kinship to the doctrines of election between properties, or between substantive rights, which rest upon settled principles of equitable jurisprudence and of the substantive law. Its ac- ceptance could not support, nor its rejection endanger the validity of those doctrines. As we shall later submit, those doctrines lend *Continued from 6 M"INNESOTA LAW REww 362. !Although no other cases have been found at law, there should be mentioned a rule of bankruptcy administration which prevailed for some time in England until abolished by statute in i869, except when" its obliga- tions are all incurred in the same transaction. A creditor holding a joint and several obligation or security of a partnership was not allowed to prove against both the joint estate of the firm and the separate estate of the partners, but was required to elect against which estate he would go.
    [Show full text]