Baird v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 71 Civ. 3205 (JMC).
| Decision Date | 13 June 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 71 Civ. 3205 (JMC).,71 Civ. 3205 (JMC). |
| Citation | 390 F. Supp. 883 |
| Parties | Dorman L. BAIRD et al., Plaintiffs, v. DAY & ZIMMERMAN, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Julien, Blitz & Schlesinger, P. C., New York City (Jesse Alan Epstein, New York City, of counsel), for plaintiffs.
Dewey, Ballantine, Bushby, Palmer & Wood, New York City (Hugh N. Fryer and Paul Sherman, New York City, of counsel), for defendant Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. (formerly Harvey Aluminum (incorporated)).
The motion of the defendant Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. (formerly Harvey Aluminum), pursuant to Rule 12(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to dismiss the complaint as against it for lack of personal and subject matter jurisdiction, is granted.
The plaintiff Baird was injured and the plaintiff Burns' intestate was killed in Vietnam on September 6, 1969, by the explosion of an artillery gun which they were operating in the service of the United States Army. Liability is ascribed to the several defendants who are alleged to have manufactured components of the gun's cartridges, fuses and shells.
Citizens of Alabama and Washington, respectively, the plaintiffs caused process to be served on the moving California defendant in California, postulating that at the time of service the defendant was doing business in the State of New York. N.Y. Civil Practice Law and Rules, Sections 301, 313; Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(e). This position is contested by that defendant by this motion.
The primary business of the moving defendant Martin Marietta Aluminum, Inc. ("Aluminum"), is the production and manufacture of aluminum products in California and in four other states outside New York. It is not licensed to do business in New York and has no facilities in that state. It does have a contractual relationship with Martin Marietta Aluminum Sales, Inc. ("Sales"), a wholly owned subsidiary authorized to do business in New York, by which Sales is authorized to solicit orders for Aluminum's products in New York and elsewhere.
There is also evidence that about the time of service of process an advertisement appeared in a New York telephone directory detailing Aluminum's products and listing Sales as the sales agency. The advertisement itself, even if inserted by Aluminum, is "mere solicitation" and will not support the plaintiff's claim. Delagi v. Volkswagenwerk A. G. of Wolfsburg, Germany, 29 N.Y.2d 426, 328 N.Y.S.2d 653, 278 N.E.2d 895 (1972); Miller v. Surf Props., 4 N.Y.2d 475, 176 N.Y.S.2d 318, 151 N.E.2d 874 (1958).
The plaintiffs rely strongly upon a presumption of agency arising from the parent-subsidiary relationship of Aluminum and Sales, but the evidence is uncontested that Sales was employed as an independent contractor devoid of authority to bind Aluminum in any way. Sales could solicit orders, but that is all it was empowered to do. It had no right to confirm sales or to set price schedules, or terms or conditions of sales. At best it could try to obtain orders and transmit them to Aluminum at its home office for acceptance or rejection.
Nor does the fact that substantial dollar amounts of Aluminum's products were sold in New York alter this conclusion: "mere solicitation" or "sales of a manufacturer's product in New York, however substantial, have never made the foreign corporation...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Circus Circus Hotels, Inc. v. Superior Court
...Aircraft Services, Inc., (E.D.Pa.1980) 493 F.Supp. 46, Sanders v. Wiltemp Corp., (S.D.N.Y.1979) 465 F.Supp. 71, Baird v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.1974) 390 F.Supp. 883, and Braasch v. Vail Associates, Inc., (N.D.Ill.1973) 370 F.Supp. It remains only to measure the defendant's activit......
-
Mayer v. Josiah Wedgwood & Sons, Ltd.
...view of the structure of the relationship between the two companies, give rise to a valid inference of agency. See Baird v. Day & Zimmerman, 390 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd mem. sub nom. Baird v. Harvey Aluminum Co., Inc., 510 F.2d 968 (2d Under § 302(a)(3), a defendant is subject to ......
-
Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Exp. Co.
...76, 11 L.Ed.2d 62 (1963); Orefice v. Laurelview Convalescent Center, Inc., 66 F.R.D. 136, 140-41 (E.D.Pa.1975); Baird v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 390 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.N.Y.1974), aff'd, 510 F.2d 968 (2d Cir. 1975); Goldrick v. D. M. Picton Co., 56 F.R.D. 639 (E.D.Vir.1971); Associated Metals &......
-
Top Form Mills, Inc. v. SOCIEDAD NATIONALE IND., ETC.
...the parent." Delagi v. Volkswagenwerk A.G., supra, 29 N.Y.2d at 433, 328 N.Y.S.2d at 657, 278 N.E.2d at 897. See Baird v. Day & Zimmerman, Inc., 390 F.Supp. 883 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); cf. Public Administrator of County of New York v. Royal Bank of Canada, supra; Taca International Airlines, S. A.......