Croyle v. Texas Eastern Corp., Civ. A. No. 77-1391.

• Decision Date: 06 February 1979
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 77-1391.
• Citation: 464 F. Supp. 377
• Parties: Judy CROYLE, Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Harry J. Croyle, Jr., Plaintiff, v. TEXAS EASTERN CORPORATION, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Ray Resources Corporation, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., Gauges International, and Ridge Tool Company, Defendants, v. HALLIBURTON SERVICES, Third Party Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania

464 F. Supp. 377

Judy CROYLE, Administratrix and Personal Representative of the Estate of Harry J. Croyle, Jr., Plaintiff, v. TEXAS EASTERN CORPORATION, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Ray Resources Corporation, Cameron Iron Works, Inc., Gauges International, and Ridge Tool Company, Defendants, v. HALLIBURTON SERVICES, Third Party Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 77-1391.

United States District Court, D. Pennsylvania.

February 6, 1979.

John A. Bonya, Beverly A. Gazza, Indiana, Pa., for plaintiff.

John David Rhodes, Thomson, Rhodes & Grigsby, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Texas Eastern Corp.

C. S. Fossee, Murovich, Reale & Fossee, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Texas Transmission, Ray Resources.

John E. Wall, J. Lawrence McBride, Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Gauges Intern.

John E. Kunz, Meyer, Darragh, Buckler, Bebenek & Eck, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Cameron Iron Works.

James A. Beinkemper, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Ridge Tool.

John J. Repcheck, Sharlock Repcheck, Engel & Mahler, Pittsburgh, Pa., for Halliburton Services.

OPINION

DIAMOND, District Judge.

This diversity action arises out of an explosion at a gas well in Garrett County, Maryland, which resulted in the death of plaintiff's decedent. Presently before the court is a motion for summary judgment filed by defendant Texas Eastern Corporation (Eastern) in which it asserts that this court does not have in personam jurisdiction over it. The motion will be granted.

Because Eastern's motion raises the issue of jurisdiction over the person, it will be treated as a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See generally 6 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 56.03 and cases cited therein. And "since plaintiff invoked diversity jurisdiction the burden is upon her to prove all the facts by which it can be sustained." McSparran v. Weist, 402 F.2d 867, 875 (3rd Cir. 1968).

It appears that plaintiff attempted to obtain service on Eastern pursuant to Rule 4(e) Fed.R.Civ.P. and the Pennsylvania "long-arm" statute, 42 Pa.C.S.A. § 8301 et seq. Eastern contends that this attempt at service was defective because Eastern is an unregistered foreign corporation which is subject to service under that statute only if it is doing business in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and in fact Eastern is not doing business in Pennsylvania.

Plaintiff does not contend that Eastern is "doing business" directly in Pennsylvania, rather, plaintiff asserts that Eastern is "doing business" vicariously here because it is the "alter ego" of co-defendant Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation (Transmission), a party which has not challenged in personam jurisdiction.

The existence of a true "alter ego" relationship may provide a sufficient basis for exerting in personam jurisdiction over a foreign corporation which otherwise has no contact with the forum state. See generally 2 Moore's Federal Practice ¶ 4.25(6). Plaintiff bases her "alter ego" position on the following facts which appear from Eastern's answers to interrogatories and the affidavit of one J. W. Butler, Secretary of Eastern:

1) When Texas Eastern was incorporated in January of 1976 the stock of Texas Transmission was reduced to 1000 shares and then transferred to Texas Eastern as a "holding company."

2) Texas Eastern owns 100% of the shares of Texas Transmission.

3) Texas Eastern is engaged in no commercial activity other than, "holding" the Texas Transmission stock.

4) Texas Eastern has no separate office facilities but instead occupies the same offices as Texas Transmission in Houston, Texas.

5) Texas Eastern and Texas Transmission have significant over-lapping of directors and officers.

Pennsylvania, like most jurisdictions, considers the Supreme Court's decision in Cannon Mfg. Co. v. Cudahy Packing Co., 267 U.S. 333, 45 S.Ct. 250, 69 L.Ed. 634 (1925) the...