Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ANDERSON v. JOHN ROYLE & SONS

February 27, 1992

JOHNNIE SUE ANDERSON, Plaintiff,
v.
JOHN ROYLE & SONS AND DEPENDABLE RUBBER MACHINERY COMPANY, Defendants. JOHN ROYLE & SONS, Third-Party Plaintiff, -v- MICROFOAM, INC., Third-Party Defendant.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: NEAL P. MCCURN

 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER

 INTRODUCTION

 Plaintiff commenced this action on September 23, 1991, to recover for personal injuries she sustained in a work-related accident which occurred on June 14, 1991, while she was employed by Microfoam, Inc. ("Microfoam") located in Utica, New York. The jurisdiction of this court is based on the diversity of citizenship of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1332.

 Plaintiff alleges that the machine which caused her injuries was manufactured by defendant John Royle & Sons and refurbished and sold to Microfoam by defendant Dependable Rubber Machinery Co. ("Dependable"). See Plaintiff's Complaint at PP9, 10, 11. Plaintiff attempted to serve Dependable pursuant to New York Business Corporation Law ("BCL") section 307. Claiming that plaintiff's attempted service was insufficient, Dependable moves to dismiss the complaint as to it pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(5).

 DISCUSSION

 Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure governs service of process. This rule states in pertinent part:

 (c)(2)(C) A summons and complaint may be served upon a defendant of any class referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) of subdivision (d) of this rule --

 (i) pursuant to the law of the State in which the district court is held for the service of summons or other like process upon such defendant in an action brought in the courts of general jurisdiction of that State, or

 (d) Service shall be made as follows: (3) Upon a domestic or foreign corporation . . . by delivering a copy of the summons and of the complaint to an officer, a managing or general agent, or to any other agent authorized by appointment or by law to receive service of process and, if the agent is one authorized by statute to receive service and the statute so requires, by also mailing a copy to the defendant.

 Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(C), (d)(3) (1991 Rev. Ed.). For the purposes of this motion, the court will assume that two facts are undisputed. First of all, Dependable is an unauthorized foreign corporation. Secondly, plaintiff attempted to serve Dependable pursuant to BCL section 307. Consequently, if plaintiff effected service in compliance with BCL section 307, such service would subject Dependable to the personal jurisdiction of this court pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2)(C)(i).

 BCL section 307 states in pertinent part:

 (a) In any case in which a non-domiciliary would be subject to the personal or other jurisdiction of the courts of this state under article three of the civil practice law and rules, a foreign corporation not authorized to do business in this state is subject to a like jurisdiction. In any such case, process against such ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.