Garrett v. Levitz Furniture Corporation, 72-C-367.
| Decision Date | 08 January 1973 |
| Docket Number | No. 72-C-367.,72-C-367. |
| Citation | 356 F. Supp. 283 |
| Parties | Charles W. GARRETT, Jr., Plaintiff, v. LEVITZ FURNITURE CORPORATION (a Pennsylvania corporation), Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Oklahoma |
Sam T. Daniel, Jr., Tulsa, Okl., for plaintiff.
Charles C. Baker, Tulsa, Okl., for defendant.
Defendant objects to the jurisdiction in this Court for the reason Defendant is neither doing business in Oklahoma nor otherwise found in the state. Plaintiff contends Defendant is present and doing business in the state in the form of its alter ego, Levitz Furniture Company of Oklahoma, Inc.
If jurisdiction exists in this Court, it must be found in the authority of the pertinent Oklahoma statutes. Perkins v. Benguet Consol. Min. Co., 342 U. S. 437, 72 S.Ct. 413, 96 L.Ed. 485 (1952). Oklahoma has three statutory provisions which provide for jurisdiction for foreign corporations. Two of them, 12 Okl. St.Ann. § 187 and § 1701.03, are "minimal contacts" type statutes and require that the subject matter of the action arise out of acts done or things located in the state. Plaintiff's action is for breach of contract based on Defendant's refusal to honor a stock purchase option exercised by Plaintiff. Plaintiff's Complaint does not allege that any of the operative facts which form the basis of such action occurred in Oklahoma. In briefing the jurisdiction question, Plaintiff makes no claim that any part of his cause of action arose out of any acts by Defendant in Oklahoma. Thus, 12 Okl. St.Ann. § 187 and § 1701.03 are inapplicable.
The third statute, 18 Okl.St.Ann. § 1.204a provides for jurisdiction under both the minimal contacts theory as well as the general doing business test. It provides for jurisdiction of an action accruing "by reason of a foreign corporation doing business in this state". Plaintiff's cause of action did not accrue to him "by reason of" Defendant's doing business in the state, as pointed out above. This statute also provides for jurisdiction of a cause of action accruing "while a foreign corporation was doing business within this state". Defendant states that Levitz Furniture Company of Oklahoma, Inc., its claimed alter ego, did not receive its corporate charter until March 14, 1972 and that it did not commence operations until April 12, 1972. The allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint show that every act of the Defendant claimed to support Plaintiff's cause of action occurred prior to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hoster v. Monongahela Steel Corp.
...§ 1701.03 and 18 Okla.Stat.1971 § 1.204a. Roc, Inc. v. Progress Drillers, Inc., 481 F.Supp. 147 (W.D.Okl.1979); Garrett v. Levitz Furniture Corp., 356 F.Supp. 283 (N.D.Okl.1973); see ABC Drlg. Co. v. The Hughes Group, 609 P.2d 763 2 In pertinent part 12 Okla.Stat.Supp.1979 § 187 provides: (......
-
Roc, Inc. v. Progress Drillers, Inc.
...Inc. v. Earnhardt, 444 F.Supp. 10 (W.D.Okl.1977); Timberlake v. Summers, 413 F.Supp. 708 (W.D. Okl.1976); Garrett v. Levitz Furniture Corp., 356 F.Supp. 283 (N.D.Okl.1973). In determining whether the Court may properly assert in personam jurisdiction over the Defendant in this case, the Cou......
-
Luckett v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., s. 77-1827
...last contacts with the State ceased over a year before the plaintiffs' cause of action arose. Cf. Garrett v. Levitz Furniture Corporation, 356 F.Supp. 283, 284-85 (N.D.Okl.) (jurisdiction held defective where claim accrued before corporate acts in Oklahoma). We agree with the district court......
-
Acme Equipment v. METRO AUTO AUCTION, ETC., CIV-78-0804-D.
...Inc. v. Earnhardt, 444 F.Supp. 10 (W.D.Okl. 1977); Timberlake v. Summers, 413 F.Supp. 708 (W.D.Okl.1976); Garrett v. Levitz Furniture Corp., 356 F.Supp. 283 (N.D.Okl. 1973). The burden is on Plaintiff to plead and prove the existence of jurisdiction when he seeks to invoke the jurisdiction ......