797 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1986), 85-2195, Robart Wood & Wire Products Corp. v. Namaco Industries, Inc.

Docket Nº:85-2195.
Citation:797 F.2d 176
Party Name:ROBART WOOD & WIRE PRODUCTS CORP., Appellant, v. NAMACO INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as National Mattress Company, Inc., Appellee.
Case Date:August 05, 1986
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 176

797 F.2d 176 (4th Cir. 1986)

ROBART WOOD & WIRE PRODUCTS CORP., Appellant,

v.

NAMACO INDUSTRIES, INC., formerly known as National Mattress

Company, Inc., Appellee.

No. 85-2195.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit

August 5, 1986

Argued April 10, 1986.

Page 177

William D. Levine (Marshall and St. Clair, on brief), for appellant.

E.M. Kowal, Jr. (Cheryl L. Connelly, Charles F. Bagley, III, Campbell, Woods, Bagley, Emerson, McNeer and Herndon, on brief), for appellee.

Before RUSSELL and CHAPMAN, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge.

CHAPMAN, Circuit Judge:

Plaintiff, Robart Wood & Wire Products Corp. (Robart), filed this action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia to enforce the judgment it had obtained against Namaco Industries, Inc. (Namaco), in the courts of New York. Namaco contested the validity of the New York judgment, arguing that the New York proceedings did not meet due process requirements. The district court agreed and dismissed Robart's complaint. Robart has appealed arguing that 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1738 (1982) requires that the district court give full faith and credit to the New York judgment. We agree and, therefore, reverse.

I

Robart brought suit in New York against Eclipse Sleep Products, Inc. and Namaco seeking to recover $11,120.02 for goods delivered to these defendants. The defendants were served with a summons on March 16, 1978. On April 4, 1978, the law firm of Redleaf, Ain, Geduldig and Farinacci, P.C., entered an appearance on behalf of both defendants and demanded service of a copy of the complaint. Settlement negotiations began and continued for several years. On May 7, 1982, apparently after negotiations had reached an impasse, counsel for Robart served a verified complaint upon counsel for the defendants. On October 1, 1982, nearly five months later, the court permitted Redleaf, Ain, Geduldig and Farinacci, P.C., to withdraw as counsel for the defendants. The order permitting withdrawal recites that the defense counsel had provided proof of service of the withdrawal motion upon the defendants.

On November 9, 1982, Robart's counsel sent notice of an application for a default judgment to Redleaf, Ain, Geduldig and Farinacci, P.C.; this notice stated that a hearing was to be held on November 23, 1982. On December 2, 1982, counsel for Robart...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP