Case Name: Julio CLAUDIO, Plaintiff, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Defendant
Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1954-08-06
Citations: 126 F. Supp. 154
Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 14413
Parties: Julio CLAUDIO, Plaintiff, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Supplement
Volume: 126
Pages: 154–154

Head Matter:
Julio CLAUDIO, Plaintiff, v. SINCLAIR REFINING COMPANY, Defendant.
Civ. A. No. 14413.
United States District Court E. D. New York.
Aug. 6, 1954.
Frederick Travers, New York City, for plaintiff.
Purdy, Lamb & Catoggio, New York City, for defendant. Vincent A. Catoggio, New York City, of counsel.

Opinion:
BRUCHHAUSEN, District Judge.
The cases submitted by the plaintiff are not in point. The recoveries therein were after trial. There is no authority for the relief sought, by way of a summary proceeding or motion, excepting where there is no genuine issue of fact, the Courts have entertained motions for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56, Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C.A. See Rackus v. Moore-McCormack, D.C., 85 F.Supp. 185; Brady v. Waterman, D.C., 10 F.R.D. 629.
The motion is denied without prejudice.