Wilson

This appeal is from a judgment that the plaintiff Wilson, a citizen of California, •take nothing in her negligence action to recover against defendant, Corning Glass Works, a New York corporation, for personal injuries arising from the sudden breaking of a glass dish manufactured by the defendant.

A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff’s motion for a trial by jury, made subsequent to her failure to demand a jury within the 30 days from the filing of her complaint to 10 days after the service of defendants answer as required by Rule-38, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A.

The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco ion August 4, 1949. Defendant was served with a copy of the complaint and summons and removed the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California and served a copy of the notice of removal ion plaintiff within -the 20 days provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1446 (b). 1 Six days after removal, defendant served its answer on plaintiff and filed it. Plaintiff, in the 30 day period from filing her complaint to the 10 days after the serving of defendant’s answer, failed to make the…

I concur. Appellant’s claim of an abuse of discretion is,. in my opinion, frivolous. It is frivolous regardless of whether the trial court’s calendar was crowded or otherwise. The condition of the court’s calendar was irrelevant, and I would not care, by referring to this matter, to¡ suggest that if the trial court was not so busy, we might hold there was an abuse of discretion.

195 F.2d 825 WILSON v. CORNING GLASS WORKS. No. 12975. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. April 15, 1952. J. Edward Johnson, W. G. Harmon, William H. Henderson, Robert H. Johnson, San Francisco, Cal., for appellant. Hadsell, Murman & Bishop, Sydney P. Murman and Richard S. Bishop, San Francisco, Cal., for appellee. Before DENMAN, Chief Judge, and BONE and POPE, Circuit Judges. DENMAN, Chief Judge. 1 This appeal is from a judgment that the plaintiff Wilson, a citizen of California, take nothing in her negligence action to recover against defendant, Corning Glass Works, a New York corporation, for personal injuries arising from the sudden breaking of a glass dish manufactured by the defendant. 2 A. The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion for a trial by jury, made subsequent to her failure to demand a jury within the 30 days from the filing of her complaint to 10 days after the service of defendant's answer as required by Rule 38, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. 3 The complaint was filed in the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco on August 4, 1949. Defendant was served with a copy of the complaint and summons…