Straus

Straus v. De Young

Good Law
155 F. Supp. 215·1957 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2915
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaMay 17, 1957No. 1745California2,256 words

Opinion

lead Opinion

Jertberg, J.

The motions of the defendants to dismiss the action, for more definite statement, and to strike portions of the complaint came on for hearing on April 29, 1957.

The defendants, Albert E. DeYoung, Edward Urner, E. A. Andress, Bryan Coleman, Ken Croes, Trustee, and Lavonne Croes, Trustee, were represented by D. Bianco. Defendant Gordon L. Harlan was represented by William C. Crossland, and the plaintiff was represented by James H. Denison and Robert H. Dietrich.

The complaint contains two causes of action. The first cause of action prays for a decree requiring the defendants to specifically perform all of the terms and conditions stated and contained in Exhibits 1, 2, 3 and 4 attached to the complaint and which are designated in the complaint as “sale agreements”. The second cause of action prays for damages, costs and expenses alleged to have been incurred by the plaintiff, in the event that the Court should determine that the plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of the “sale agreements”.

The complaint alleges that the defendant, Albert E. DeYoung, was the duly authorized agent and attorney in fact of the remaining defendants, under a written power of attorney…

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.