Tipton

Tipton v. Bearl Sprott Co.

Good Law
175 F.2d 432·1949 U.S. App. LEXIS 3402
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 6, 1949No. 11863California2,999 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Mathews, J.

This was an action by appellants (Thelma Tipton, Mary Foster, Eva C. Whitney, Mary F. DeBenedetti, Clara Owens Turner, Trinidad Mora, Dorothy Mora, Dora Grajeda, Conchita Grajeda, Mary S. Tibbetts and Gussie Bourne) against appellees (Bearl Sprott Company, Inc., Bearl Sprott, Doe I, Doe II and Doe III). Appellants commenced the action by filing a complaint on January 24, 1947. They filed an amended complaint on January 31, 1947, a second amended complaint on August 28, 1947, and a third amended complaint on December 11, 1947. On December 30, 1947, Bearl Sprott Company, Inc., 1 moved to dismiss the action on the ground that the second amended complaint failed to state a claim against Bearl Sprott Company, Inc., upon which relief could be granted. 2 This was treated by the District Court as a motion to dismiss the third amended complaint 3 on the ground that it failed to state a claim against Bearl Sprott Company, Inc., upon which relief could be granted. So treated, the motion was granted, and on January 23, 1948, an order was entered dismissing the third amended complaint without leave to amend. From that order this appeal is prosecuted.

The third amended complaint was based on…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.