Sterry Robinson Waterman

Summary

Sterry Robinson Waterman Katz v. Realty Equities Corp.… (1975)

Without a firm conviction that prejudice will result, we are most reluctant to interfere, and perhaps disrupt, the efforts of the district court which, without sacrificing the rights of the various parties, seeks to expedite this complex litigation.
The appellants claim that they have been prejudiced in two ways: the expansion of the classes in the consolidated complaint; and the deeming of cross-claims amongst the defendants during the discovery process.
Source: Wikisource

Sterry Robinson Waterman Katz v. Realty Equities Corp.… (1975)

Here, under the broad heading that the district court lacked the authority to order a consolidated complaint, the appellants advance various objections to the use of a consolidated complaint: that the order accomplishes an impermissible merger of claims; that the decision in Garber v. Randell, supra, excluding the law firm there, is indistinguishable and controlling; that the order inflicts substantial prejudice on the appellants.
Source: Wikisource

Sterry Robinson Waterman Katz v. Realty Equities Corp.… (1975)

The benefits of collecting, for example, sixteen identical answers in each of sixteen cases from one defendant is not readily discernible. It is true that those defendants named in only a small number of complaints, for example Grant and KHF, would not be overly burdened, but, nevertheless, the overall economies in reducing the proliferation of duplicative papers warrant the trial judge's efforts in the present circumstances. Moreover, it is apparent that a consolidated complaint also aids the consolidated discovery process which all parties, including the appellants, favor.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature