Bollard v. VOLKSWAGENWERKE, AG

• Decision Date: 24 February 1970
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 17845-3.
• Citation: 313 F. Supp. 126
• Parties: Margaret Carroll BOLLARD, Plaintiff, v. VOLKSWAGENWERKE, A.G., and Volkswagen of America, Inc., Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri

313 F. Supp. 126

Margaret Carroll BOLLARD, Plaintiff, v.VOLKSWAGENWERKE, A.G., and Volkswagen of America, Inc., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 17845-3.

United States District Court, W. D. Missouri, W. D.

February 24, 1970.

Robert M. Van Horn, Hutson, Van Horn & Schmidt, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiff.

John C. Risjord, Gordon, Adams, Niewald & Risjord, Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTVOLKSWAGENWERKE, A.G.'s MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO QUASH SUMMONS

BECKER, Chief Judge.

This is a suit under the diversity statute, Section 1332,Title 28, United States Code, in which plaintiff alleges that she was injured by a defective windshield in her husband's Volkswagen automobile.

By its motion filed on December 22, 1969, defendantVolkswagenwerke, A.G. moved to quash summons served on one "G. Storbach", 818 Sylvan Avenue, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, and accordingly to dismiss the complaint against it.In support of the motion, defendantVolkswagenwerke, A.G. produced the affidavit of its president that it did not do business in Missouri and that Gunter Storbach was not an agent of the defendant authorized to receive service of process.It also produced the affidavit of Storbach to the effect that he was not an agent of defendant authorized to receive service.Thereupon, this Court entered its order directing the plaintiff to show cause in writing why summons should not be quashed and the complaint dismissed with respect to defendantVolkswagenwerke, A.G.Plaintiff responded on February 6, 1970, attaching to her response a counteraffidavit and designation papers from the United States Department of Transportation, showing that Volkswagen of America, Inc., was designated the agent of Volkswagenwerke Aktiengesellschaft"pursuant to section 110(e) of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966."Plaintiff also filed new summons, showing service and return thereof on Volkswagen of America, Inc., on January 29, 1970, by service on the Secretary of State's office with a registered mail copy to be sent to Volkswagen of America and Dr. Hans Kruger in Wolfsburg, Germany.

Plaintiff has therefore demonstrated that defendantVolkswagenwerke, A.G. has been served appropriately within the terms of the controlling statute, Section 351.633, RSMo, which reads as follows:

"Nothing herein contained shall limit or affect the right to serve any process, notice, or demand required or permitted by law to be served upon a foreign corporation in any other manner now or hereafter permitted by law."

Section 1399 of Title 15, United States Code, is another law within the terms of § 351.633, which provides as follows:

"It shall be the duty of every manufacturer offering a motor vehicle or item of motor vehicle equipment for importation into the United States to designate in writing an agent upon whom service of all administrative and judicial processes, notice, order, decisions and requirements may be made for and on behalf of said manufacturer, and to file such designation with the Secretary, which designation may from time to time be changed by like writing, similarly filed.Service of all administrative and judicial processes, notices, orders, decisions and requirements may be made upon such designated agent at his office or usual place of residence with like effect as if made personally upon said manufacturer, and in default of such designation of such

...