Form 15.-COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES UNDER MERCHANT MARINE ACT 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. --- 2. During all the times herein mentioned defendant was the owner of the steamship and used it in the transportation of freight for hire by water in interstate and foreign commerce. 3. During the first part of (month and year) at plaintiff entered the employ of defendant as an able seaman on said steamship under seaman's articles of customary form for a voyage from ports to the Orient and return at a wage of dollars per month and found, which is equal to a wage of dollars per month as a shore worker. 4. On June 1, 1936, said steamship was about ---- days out of the port of and was being navigated by the master and crew on the return voyage to ---- ports. (Hera describe weather conditions and the condition of the ship and state as in an ordinary complaint for personal injuries the negligent conduct of defendant.) 5. By reason of defendant's negligence in thus (brief statement of defendant's negligent conduct) and the unseaworthiness of said steamship, plaintiff was (here describe plaintiff's injuries). 6. Prior to these injuries, plaintiff was a strong, ablebodied man, capable of earning and actually earning dollars per day. By these injuries he has been made incapable of any gainful activity; has suffered great physical and mental pain, and has incurred expense in the amount of ---dollars for medicine, medical attendance, and hospitalization. 7. Plaintiff elects to maintain this action under the provisions of section 33 of the Act of June 5, 1920, c. 250, 41 Stat. 1007. Wherefore plaintiff demands judgment against defendant in the sum of ____ dollars and costs. Form 16.-COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. On May 16, 1934, United States Letters Patent No. were duly and legally issued to plaintiff for an inven tion in an electric motor; and since that date plaintiff has been and still is the owner of those Letters Patent. 3. Defendant has for a long time past been and still is infringing those Letters Patent by making, selling, and using electric motors embodying the patented invention, and will continue to do so unless enjoined by this court. 4. Plaintiff has placed the required statutory notice on all electric motors manufactured and sold by him under said Letters Patent, and has given written notice to defendant of his said infringement. Wherefore plaintiff demands a preliminary and final injunction against further infringement by defendant and those controlled by defendant, an accounting for profits and damages, and an assessment of costs against defendant. Form 17.-COMPLAINT FOR INFRINGEMENT OF COPYRIGHT AND UNFAIR COMPETITION 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. Prior to March 2, 1936, plaintiff, who then was and ever since has been a citizen of the United States, created and wrote an original book, entitled 3. This book contains a large amount of material wholly original with plaintiff and is copyrightable subject matter under the laws of the United States. 4. Between March 2, 1936, and March 10, 1936, plaintiff complied in all respects with the Act of (give citation) and all other laws governing copyright, and secured the exclusive rights and privileges in and to the copyright of said book, and received from the Register of Copyrights a certificate of registration, dated and identified as follows: "March 10, 1936, Class ----, No. 5. Since March 10, 1936, said book has been published by plaintiff and all copies of it made by plaintiff or under his authority or license have been printed, bound, and published in strict conformity with the provisions of the Act of and all other laws governing copyright. 6. Since March 10, 1936, plaintiff has been and still is the sole proprietor of all rights, title, and interest in and. to the copyright in said book. 7. After March 10, 1936, defendant infringed said copyright by publishing and placing upon the market a book entitled which was copied largely from plaintiff's copyrighted book, entitled 8. A copy of plaintiff's copyrighted book is hereto attached as "Exhibit 1"; and a copy of defendant's infringing book is hereto attached as "Exhibit 2”. 9. Plaintiff has notified defendant that defendant has infringed the copyright of plaintiff, and defendant has continued to infringe the copyright. Wherefore plaintiff demands: (1) That defendant, his agents, and servants be enjoined during the pendency of this action and permanently from infringing said copyright of said plaintiff in any manner. (2) That defendant be required to pay to plaintiff such damages as plaintiff has sustained in consequence of defendant's infringement of said copyright and to account and pay over to plaintiff all the gains, profits, and advantages derived by defendant from his infringement of plaintiff's copyright or such damages as to the court shall appear proper within the provisions of the copyright statutes, but not less than two hundred and fifty dollars. (3) That defendant be required to deliver up to be impounded during the pendency of this action all copies in his possession or under his control infringing said copyright and to deliver up for destruction all infringing copies and all plates, molds, and other matter for making such infringing copies. (4) That defendant pay to plaintiff the costs of this action and reasonable attorney's fees to be allowed to the plaintiff by the court. (5) That plaintiff have such other and further relief as is just. Form 18.-COMPLAINT FOR INTERPLEADER AND DECLARATORY RELIEF 1. Allegation of jurisdiction. 2. On or about June 1, 1935, plaintiff issued to G. H. a policy of life insurance whereby plaintiff promised to pay to K. L. as beneficiary the sum of ten thousand dollars upon the death of G. H. The policy required the payment by G. H. of a stipulated premium on June 1, 1936, and annually thereafter as a condition precedent to its continuance in force. 3. No part of the premium due June 1, 1936, was ever paid and the policy ceased to have any force or effect on July 1, 1936. 4. Thereafter, on September 1, 1936, G. H. and K. L. died as the result of a collision between a locomotive and the automobile in which G. H. and K. L. were riding. 5. Defendant C. D. is the duly appointed and acting executor of the will of G. H.; defendant E. F. is the duly appointed and acting executor of the will of K. L.; defendant X. Y. claims to have been duly designated as beneficiary of said policy in place of K. L. 6. Each of defendants, C. D., E. F., and X. Y. is claiming that the above-mentioned policy was in full force and effect at the time of the death of G. H.; each of them is claiming to be the only person entitled to receive payment of the amount of the policy and has made demand for payment thereof. 7. By reason of these conflicting claims of the defendants, plaintiff is in great doubt as to which defendant is entitled to be paid the amount of the policy, if it was in force at the death of G. H. Wherefore plaintiff demands that the court adjudge: (1) That none of the defendants is entitled to recover from plaintiff the amount of said policy or any part thereof. (2) That each of the defendants be restrained from instituting any action against plaintiff for the recovery of the amount of said policy or any part thereof. (3) That, if the court shall determine that said policy was in force at the death of G. H., the defendants be required to interplead and settle between themselves their rights to the money due under said policy, and that plaintiff be discharged from all liability in the premises except to the person whom the court shall adjudge entitled to the amount of said policy. (4) That plaintiff recover its costs. Form 19.-MOTION TO DISMISS, PRESENTING DEFENSES OF FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, OF LACK OF SERVICE OF PROCESS, OF IMPROPER VENUE, AND OF LACK OF JURISDICTION UNDER RULE 12 (b) The defendant moves the court as follows: 1. To dismiss the action because the complaint fails to state a claim against defendant upon which relief can be granted. 2. To dismiss the action or in lieu thereof to quash the return of service of summons on the grounds (a) that the defendant is a corporation organized under the laws of Delaware and was not and is not subject to service of process within the Southern District of New York, and (b) that the defendant has not been properly served with process in this action, all of which more clearly appears in the affidavits of M. N. and X. Y. hereto annexed as Exhibit A and Exhibit B respectively. 3. To dismiss the action on the ground that it is in the wrong district because (a) the jurisdiction of this court is invoked solely on the ground that the action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States and (b) the defendant is a corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Delaware and is an inhabitant thereof. 4. To dismiss the action on the ground that the court lacks jurisdiction because the amount actually in controversy is less than three thousand dollars exclusive of interest and costs. Please take notice, that the undersigned will bring the above motion on for hearing before this Court at Room ---United States Courts and Post Office Building, Borough |