Dunn v. Cedar Rapids Engineering Co., 11020.

• Decision Date: 27 February 1946
• Docket Number: No. 11020.,11020.
• Citation: Dunn v. Cedar Rapids Engineering Co., 152 F.2d 733 (9th Cir. 1946)
• Parties: DUNN v. CEDAR RAPIDS ENGINEERING CO. OF DELAWARE et al.
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit

152 F.2d 733 (1945)

DUNN v. CEDAR RAPIDS ENGINEERING CO. OF DELAWARE et al.

No. 11020.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

December 26, 1945.

Rehearing Denied February 27, 1946.

Desser, Rau & Christensen, of Los Angeles, Cal., for appellant.

Mathes & Sheppard, William C. Mathes, and Gordon F. Hampton, all of Los Angeles, Cal. (Cameron W. Cecil, of Los Angeles, Cal., of counsel), for appellees.

Before STEPHENS, BONE, and ORR, Circuit Judges.

STEPHENS, Circuit Judge.

Dunn brought suit in the California State Superior Court against two corporations, resident in another state, upon a cause of action wholly arising in the other state. The corporations were doing business in California and had designated an agent upon whom service of summons could be served. Upon motion of the corporations the cause was removed to the United States District Court upon the ground of diversity of citizenship. Thereupon the corporations-defendants appeared specially and presented a motion to set aside, vacate and quash the service, and the motion was granted. Dunn appeals.

The District Court acquired such jurisdiction, no more no less, as the Superior Court had. Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 1922, 258 U.S. 377, 382, 42 S.Ct. 349, 351, 66 L.Ed. 671: "* * * The jurisdiction of the federal court on removal is, in a limited sense, a derivative jurisdiction. If the state court lacks jurisdiction of the subject-matter or of the parties, the federal court acquires none, although it might in a like suit originally brought there have had jurisdiction. * * *" Our inquiry therefore is: Did the State Superior Court have jurisdiction of the cause? Unless states authorize their courts to entertain actions arising wholly outside the state, they have no jurisdiction to entertain them. Has California given its courts such jurisdiction?

The California statute authorizing service of a foreign corporation is as follows:

(§ 405, Civil Code) "Articles and statement to be filed. In this chapter the term `foreign corporation' means a corporation not incorporated under the laws of this State. The term `articles' includes the articles or certificate of incorporation or other document filed for the purpose of creating the corporation with the Secretary of State or other official of the State, Territory, or government, under the laws of which such corporation is created, and any amendments thereof, any certificates supplemental thereto, or any special charter, statute, or governmental act * * * amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto. The term `transact intrastate business' as used in this chapter means entering into repeated and successive transactions of its business in this State, other than interstate or foreign commerce.

"No foreign corporation shall transact intrastate business in this State until it has filed with the Secretary of State a copy of its articles duly certified by the Secretary of State or other official of the government under the laws of which it was created, together with a verified translation into English if the original be written in a foreign language, nor until it has also filed with...