Reliance Steel Products Co. v. Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas, No. 81-2522

• Court: United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (3rd Circuit)
• Writing for the Court: Before GIBBONS, SLOVITER and BECKER; GIBBONS
• Citation: 675 F.2d 587
• Parties: RELIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellant, v. WATSON, ESS, MARSHALL & ENGGAS. . Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6)
• Decision Date: 01 April 1982
• Docket Number: No. 81-2522

Page 587

675 F.2d 587 RELIANCE STEEL PRODUCTS COMPANY, Appellant,
v.
WATSON, ESS, MARSHALL & ENGGAS. No. 81-2522. United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit. Submitted Under Third Circuit Rule 12(6) April 1, 1982.
Decided April 15, 1982.

Herbert A. Fogel, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellant.

George P. Williams, III., Carl A. Solano, Philadelphia, Pa., for appellee; Schnader, Harrison, Segal & Lewis, Philadelphia, Pa., of counsel.

Before GIBBONS, SLOVITER and BECKER, Circuit Judges.

OPINION OF THE COURT

GIBBONS, Circuit Judge.

Reliance Steel Products Company (Reliance), a Pennsylvania corporation, appeals from a judgment dismissing its complaint

Page 588

against Watson, Ess, Marshall & Enggas (Watson), a Missouri law partnership, on the ground of lack of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant. We affirm.

This suit was originally brought in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County against Watson for breach of contract and negligent legal representation. The suit was subsequently removed to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, where the defendant immediately raised the jurisdictional defense and discovery commenced with regard to that issue.

Reliance sought to establish that Watson was subject to the court's jurisdiction under the Pennsylvania "long-arm" statute, 42 Pa.C.S. § 5301, et seq.

After deposing James F. Duncan, a partner in the defendant firm, it became apparent that Reliance would not carry its burden of proving that the activities of the defendant brought it within the scope of the Pennsylvania long-arm statute. See DiCesare-Engler Productions, Inc. v. Mainman Ltd., 81 F.R.D. 703, 705 (W.D.Pa.1979); Amba Marketing Systems, Inc. v. Jobar Intern., Inc., 551 F.2d 784, 787 (9th Cir. 1977); see also Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea v. Ins. Co. of North America, 651 F.2d 877, 881 (3rd Cir. 1981), cert. granted sub nom. Ins. Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinea, --- U.S. ----, 102 S.Ct. 502, 70 L.Ed.2d 377 (U.S.1981).

Reliance then sought further discovery through a series of interrogatories which questioned Watson's activities in all forums. However, the district court limited the scope of those interrogatories to "activities occurring within or concerning Pennsylvania or citizens of Pennsylvania." After a hearing on the jurisdictional issue, the district court entered judgment in Watson's favor, holding that the defendants had never availed themselves of the privilege of acting in Pennsylvania, that the cause of action arose from the defendant's activities outside Pennsylvania, and that their acts did not have a substantial enough connection with Pennsylvania to make the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.

Reliance alleges that the Eastern District of Pennsylvania could assert personal jurisdiction over Watson under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(e) and the Pennsylvania long-arm statute, 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 5301-5308 and §§ 5321-5322. Specifically, the plaintiff relies on §...