SIAM KRAFT P. CO., LTD. v. Parsons & Whittemore, Inc.

• Decision Date: 25 September 1975
• Docket Number: Civ. A. No. 1716-73.
• Citation: 400 F. Supp. 810
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia
• Parties: SIAM KRAFT PAPER CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. PARSONS & WHITTEMORE, INC., et al., Defendants.

400 F. Supp. 810

SIAM KRAFT PAPER CO., LTD., Plaintiff, v. PARSONS & WHITTEMORE, INC., et al., Defendants.

Civ. A. No. 1716-73.

United States District Court, District of Columbia, Civil Division.

September 25, 1975.

Mattaniah Eytan, James W. Schroeder, Charles W. Kirkwood, Murray J. Belman, Washington, D. C., for plaintiff.

Evan R. Berlack, Burton A. Schwalb, John W. Douglas, G. R. Poehner, Washington, D. C., for defendants.

AMENDED MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOHN H. PRATT, District Judge.

This cause comes before the Court at this time on defendant Parsons & Whittemore, Inc.'s motion to quash service of process and to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Defendant Parsons & Whittemore, Inc. is a New York-based corporation whose business primarily involves the construction and operation of pulp mills and paper mills in foreign countries. To facilitate such foreign investment projects, the Federal Government, through agencies such as the Export-Import Bank and the Agency for International Development (A.I.D.), issues grants to support feasibility studies, makes loans to foreign borrowers and guarantees domestic loans and equity investments.

In the course of developing a pulp and paper mill to be based in Thailand, the subject of this law suit, defendant Parsons & Whittemore received a grant from A.I.D. to cover one-half of its costs in undertaking the feasibility study, sought and secured certain investment guarantees from A.I.D. in connection with its own equity investment and loans from private lenders, and negotiated a loan from the Export-Import Bank to the plaintiff, Siam Kraft Paper Company, Ltd.

In opposing defendant's motion the plaintiff argues that these and similar "contacts" with the Federal Government in the District of Columbia constitute "doing business" within the meaning of both D.C.Code § 13-423(a)(1) ("long arm" statute) or D.C.Code § 29-933i(c) (service of process on foreign corporation). Recognizing the general rule in this jurisdiction that government contacts do not as such satisfy the "doing business" criterion of the local jurisdiction statutes, Traher v. De-Havilland Aircraft, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 33, 294 F.2d 229 (1961); Mueller Brass Company v. Alexander Milburn Co., 80 U.S.App.D.C. 274, 152 F.2d 142 (1943); Weisblatt v. United Aircraft Corp., 134 A.2d 713 (D.C.Mun.App.1957), the plaintiff attempts to distinguish the instant case as involving "commercial" contacts with the Government, relying on Raymond v. Anthony, 233 F.Supp. 305 (D.D.C.1964). The Raymond case involved an Illinois corporate defendant which regularly sold its products to the Government and maintained an office in the District of Columbia to solicit and service its contracts of sale. In this context, the Court found personal jurisdiction over the corporate defendant noting that,

"the defendant herein is doing business in the District of Columbia under the standard of solicitation plus maintaining regular business activities as established in Frene, et al. v. Louisville Cement Co., 77 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 F.2d 511, 146 A.L.R. 926 (1943)." (233 F.Supp. at 306)

The Court in effect treated the question of jurisdiction over the corporate defendant in the same way as it would have been treated if the defendant's District of Columbia customer was a private company rather than the Federal Government. In other words, the Court...