Newmark v. Abeel
| Decision Date | 03 March 1952 |
| Citation | 102 F. Supp. 993 |
| Parties | NEWMARK v. ABEEL et al. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of New York |
Morris Newmark, pro se.
Lowe, Dougherty, Hart & Marcus, New York City, for defendants Eastern Cutter Corp. and L. T. S. Cutter Corp.
Lowe, Dougherty, Hart & Marcus, New York City, for defendant Tool Sales & Service, Inc.
The defendants Eastern Cutter Corporation, L. T. S. Cutter Corporation, and Tools Sales & Service, Inc., move to dismiss the complaint for (1) lack of personal jurisdiction, and (2) improper venue. The alleged defect that service was not made upon the proper officers of two of these corporations has been cured since the hearing on this motion.
Tools Sales & Service, Inc., and Eastern Cutter Corporation are New Jersey corporations and maintain their plants and principal offices there. L. T. S. Cutter Corporation, also a New Jersey corporation, was dissolved in 1948.1 Service was made on the defendants in Newark, New Jersey.
The complaint alleges violations of the anti-trust laws. Therefore, service of process upon the corporate defendants at their principal offices in New Jersey outside the territorial limits of this District was proper under Section 12 of the Clayton Act, 15 U.S.C.A. § 22, which permits service "in the district of which a corporation is an inhabitant, or wherever it may be found." See Abrams v. Bendix Home Appliances, Inc., D.C., 92 F.Supp. 633. Orange Theatre Corp. v. Rayherstz Amusement Corp., 3 Cir., 139 F.2d 871, certiorari denied 322 U.S. 740, 64 S.Ct. 1057, 88 L.Ed. 1573, and other cases cited by the defendant are inapplicable since they involved individual defendants.
The motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is denied.
Section 12 also directs that venue in an anti-trust action against a corporation may be fixed "not only in the judicial district whereof it is an inhabitant, but also in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business * * *." See Abrams v. Bendix Home Appliances, Inc., D.C., 96 F. Supp. 3.
Whether the defendants are "found" or "transacting business" in this district is in sharp dispute. The affidavits submitted by plaintiff relate to activities of the defendants during 1949 and earlier years. On this motion the issue is whether the defendants were "found" or "transacting business" here at the time of service of process.
It cannot be presumed that the defendants' activities continued during the interval of more than two years prior to the institution of this suit in September 1951. French v. Gibbs Corporation, 2 Cir., 189 F.2d 787, is not to the contrary. There, the defendant had engaged in substantial activities until one month before service of process and at the time of service, its activities, although reduced, had not altogether ceased.
The statements contained in the supporting affidavits that "it is my understanding that Eastern Cutter Corporation is doing business" and others of like tenor, are conclusory and unsupported by facts.
The motion to dismiss for improper venue is granted, but...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
General Elec. Credit v. Scott's Furniture Warehouse
...facie case on the issue of personal jurisdiction. Barrett v. United States, 646 F.Supp. 1345 (S.D.N.Y.1986), citing, Newmark v. Abeel, 102 F.Supp. 993, 994 (S.D.N.Y.1952). Mere averments of jurisdiction are not enough nor may conclusory, unsupported statements contained in accompanying affi......
-
Penasquitos, Inc. v. Superior Court
...v. John P. Squire & Co. (1911) 81 N.J.L. 103, 79 A. 282, 283.) This case has been often cited and followed. (See Newmark v. Abeel (S.D.N.Y.1952) 102 F.Supp. 993, 993, fn. 1; Sisk v. Old Hickory Motor Freight (N.C.1943) 222 N.C. 631, 24 S.E.2d 488, 489-490; Floerchinger v. Sioux Falls Gas Co......
-
Sevits v. McKiernan-Terry Corporation, 65 Civ. 1804.
...302 U.S. 120, 58 S.Ct. 125, 82 L.Ed. 147 (1937); Walder v. Paramount Publix Corp., 132 F.Supp. 912 (S.D.N.Y.1955); Newmark v. Abeel, 102 F.Supp. 993 (S.D.N.Y.1952). Delaware law is the applicable law and under Delaware law it is settled that the separate corporate existence of a constituent......
-
Barrett v. United States
...Cir.1981). However, mere conclusory statements cannot be relied upon to establish this prima facie case. See Newmark v. Abeel, 102 F.Supp. 993, 994 (S.D.N.Y.1952), (Weinfeld, J.). Affidavits based on personal knowledge are to be credited over contradictory allegations based merely on inform......