Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries
Decision Date | 07 August 1946 |
Docket Number | No. 11189.,11189. |
Citation | 156 F.2d 351 |
Parties | GIUSTI v. PYROTECHNIC INDUSTRIES, Inc., et al. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Chellis Carpenter, of San Francisco, Cal., for appellant.
Gregory, Hunt, Melvin & Faulkner, Harold C. Faulkner, and Robert Beale, all of San Francisco, Cal., for appellees.
Before DENMAN, BONE and ORR, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a judgment dismissing the complaint below as to appellee Triumph Fusee & Fireworks Company, a corporation, hereinafter called Triumph, and an order quashing the service of a summons on the Secretary of State of the State of California as the claimed agent of Triumph.
The complaint1 alleged that appellant at all relevant times was engaged in the business of buying and selling fireworks in the State of California. Triumph, a Delaware corporation, is an association of fireworks manufacturing corporations composed of the other defendants below, a New York, Arizona, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Jersey, two Maryland, and several California corporations, producing approximately 85% of the total production of fireworks in the United States. All are engaged in interstate commerce in fireworks, and prior to the charged combination to fix the price of fireworks were in competition with one another. Triumph and these other corporations are charged with combining to perform and performing on or about the 12th day of April, 1935, the following acts:
On December 7, 1943, Triumph filed in the office of the Secretary of State of California its Certificate of Withdrawal from Intra-State Business in California, under the provisions of Section 411 of the Civil Code of the State of California, which Certificate stated, among other matters, in accordance with that Code requirement "That said defendant consents that process against it in any action upon any liability or obligation incurred within this State prior to the filing of the Certificate of Withdrawal may be served upon the Secretary of State."
Appellant served upon the Secretary of State of California a copy of his complaint and the summons thereon issued by the District Court. On Triumph's motion, the District Court quashed the service of the summons and dismissed the complaint as to Triumph.
Triumph asserts this was not error, claiming (1) that under the California law the Secretary of State's agency is confined to suits upon liabilities created by Triumph only in "business transacted" by it in that state; (2) that the six months' activity of Triumph's coconspirators in destroying appellant's business for the benefit of their monopoly is not transacting business within the California law; and (3) that Triumph did nothing in California, though its coconspirators, as its agents, so destroyed appellant's California business.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Outboard Marine Corp. v. Pezetel
...Id. at 384, 74 S.Ct. at 149. Urging that the Court disregard this statement as mere dictum, plaintiff relies on Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries, Inc., 156 F.2d 351 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, Triumph Explosives, Inc. v. Giusti, 329 U.S. 787, 67 S.Ct. 355, 91 L.Ed. 675 (1946), in which the Ni......
-
Caribe Trailer Systems v. Puerto Rico Maritime
...Inc. v. Paramount Pictures, Inc., 111 F.Supp. 458, 462 (W.D.La.1951), mod. on other grounds, 145 F.Supp. 523 (W.D.La.1956). 15 156 F.2d 351, 354 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 356 U.S. 936, 67 S.Ct. 355, 91 L.Ed. 675 16 E. g., Bertha Bldg. Corp. v. National Theatres Corp., 248 F.2d 833, 836 (2d ......
-
Kipperman v. McCone
...constitutional standards, may depend upon the imputed conduct of a co-conspirator. Any contrary suggestion in Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries, 156 F.2d 351 (9 Cir. 1956), has been strictly limited to apply only to corporate defendants. California Clippers, Inc. v. United States S. F. Ass'n......
-
Hitt v. Nissan Motor Company, Ltd.
...the merits also determines the outcome of the venue question. This explains to some extent the rejection of the Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries, 156 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1946), line of cases which generally hold that location of an alleged co-conspirator within a forum is sufficient to allow......
-
Antitrust and International Commerce
...was the agent of nonresident coconspirators for purposes of establishing venue. See, e.g., Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Indus., Inc., 156 F.2d 351, 354 (9th Cir. 1946); Ross-Bart Port Theatre, Inc. v. Eagle Lion Films, Inc., 140 F. Supp. 401, 402-03 (E.D. Va. 1954). This line of reasoning has 1342......
-
Table of Cases
...1134 (11th Cir. 2001), 1047, 1048, 1122 Giuliano v. SanDisk LLC, 705 F. App’x 957 (Fed. Cir. 2017), 1182 Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Indus., 156 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1946), 1341 G.K.A. Beverage Corp. v. Honickman, 55 F.3d 762 (2d Cir. 1995), 813 Glacier Optical v. Optique Du Monde, Ltd., 1995 U.S. ......
-
Attributing One Party's Contacts With the Forum State to Another: Conspiracy Jurisdiction in Alabama
...venue dispute. In Giusti v. Pyrotechnic Industries, Inc. the Ninth Circuit imputed the acts of one party to another based on conspiracy. 156 F.2d 351 (9th Cir. 1946). Even though Giusti was a venue dispute in an antitrust action under the Clayton Act, the court's classification of conspirac......