DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co.
Decision Date | 09 July 1963 |
Docket Number | Civ. No. 9365. |
Citation | 225 F. Supp. 569 |
Parties | Louis DiMEO, Plaintiff, and C. Cowles and Company, Intervening Plaintiff, v. The MINSTER MACHINE CO., Inc. and Ross Operating Valve Co., Inc., Defendants. |
Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Kevin T. Gormley, of Gormley & Gormley, New Haven, Conn., for plaintiff.
Douglas B. Johnson, New Haven, Conn., for intervening plaintiff C. Cowles and Company.
Peter C. Dorsey, of Gumbart, Corbin, Tyler & Cooper, New Haven, Conn., for defendant Minster Machine Co., Inc.
John C. Flanagan, New Haven, Conn., for defendant Ross Operating Valve Co., Inc. TIMBERS, District Judge.
Defendant Minster Machine Co., Inc. having moved (i) pursuant to Rule 12 (b) (2) and (5), Fed.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over said defendant and to quash service of process because of the insufficiency of service of process on said defendant, and (ii) pursuant to Rule 12(b) (6), Fed.R.Civ.P., to dismiss the second count of the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted; and
Defendant Minster, at the time of oral argument, having withdrawn its motion to dismiss the complaint on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over said defendant and to quash service of process because of insufficiency of service of process on said defendant (motion (i) above); and
With respect to motion (ii) above, the Court, having heard arguments by counsel for the respective parties, having received and considered said defendant's motion, briefs of the respective parties, pleadings and other papers on file; and being of the opinion that the second count of neither plaintiff DiMeo's complaint nor intervening plaintiff Cowles' complaint (2 Moore's Federal Practice, ¶ 12.14, p. 2266 (2d ed. 1962)) states a cause of action for breach of warranty because of the failure of said counts to allege facts, if there be any, bringing this case within the exception enunciated in Hamon v. Digliani, 148 Conn. 710, 718, 174 A.2d 294 (1961), to the long-standing rule in Connecticut requiring privity of contract as an essential element of a cause of action for breach of warranty (Boruchi v. MacKewzie Bros. Co., 125 Conn. 92, 3 A.2d 224 (1938)); it is
Ordered that defendant Minster's motion to dismiss the second count of the complaint be, and the same hereby is, denied, provided that within thirty (30) days from the date of this order an amended complaint and an amended intervening complaint be filed alleging facts, if there be any, bringing said complaints within the rule of Hamon v. Digliani, supra, failing which the Clerk of this Court is directed to enter an order dismissing the second count of the complaint and the second count of the intervening complaint.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Buckeye Boiler Co. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County
...Corp., Supra, 176 N.E.2d 761, 766; Metal-Matic, Inc. v. Eighth Judicial District Court, 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617; DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co., D.C., 225 F.Supp. 569 (mere presence of product in state not enough to sustain jurisdiction); Comment, Supra, 63 Mich.L.Rev. 1028, 1033--1034; but......
-
Connelly v. Uniroyal, Inc.
...Corp., 176 N.E.2d 761, 766 (22 Ill.2d 432, 442); Metal-Matic, Inc. v. District Court, 82 Nev. 263, 415 P.2d 617; DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co., D.C., 225 F.Supp. 569 (mere presence of product in state not enough to sustain jurisdiction); Comment, Supra, 63 Mich.L.Rev. 1028, 1033-1034; but se......
-
Burt Drilling, Inc. v. Portadrill
...Co., 151 W.Va. 133, 150 S.E.2d 793 (1966); Moss v. City of Winston-Salem, 254 N.C. 480, 119 S.E.2d 445 (1961); and DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co., 225 F.Supp. 569 (D.Conn.1963). Interpretation of a state's long-arm statute requires consideration of both the scope of specific statutory languag......
-
Doggett v. Electronics Corp. of America, Combustion Control Division
...Inc., 172 F.Supp. 416 (D.Minn.1959); Mann v. Equitable Gas Company, 209 F.Supp. 571 (N.D.W.Va.1962); and DiMeo v. Minster Machine Co., 225 F.Supp. 569 (D.Conn.1963). Although we do not consider the point which respondents attempt to distinguish as the ratio decidendi of the Gray case, we do......