Steele v. GD Searle and Co.
Decision Date | 24 November 1976 |
Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 4614. |
Citation | 422 F. Supp. 560 |
Parties | Mrs. Nancy K. STEELE, Plaintiff, v. G. D. SEARLE AND COMPANY, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Mississippi |
Alfred N. Crisler, Jackson, Miss., William Larry Latham, Jackson, Miss., for plaintiff.
Cary E. Bufkin, Jackson, Miss., Michael S. Allred, Jackson, Miss., for defendant.
Following the remand of the above styled case to this Court, Steele v. G. D. Searle & Co., 5 Cir., 483 F.2d 339, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment predicated upon its earlier asserted defense that the applicable Kansas statute of limitations bars this action in Mississippi. It is to this issue that the briefs and oral argument of opposing counsel have been addressed.
In this diversity case, it is undisputed that had plaintiff, a resident of Kansas, and whose cause of action accrued in Kansas, brought her action in Kansas, it would have been barred. Her injury allegedly occurred in Kansas on February 15, 1964, and the applicable Kansas statute of limitations is two years KSA-60-513 (1968). For a similar type injury in Mississippi, the applicable statute is six years (Section 15-1-49, Mississippi Code of 1972). Plaintiff filed her action in the Chancery Court of the First Judicial District of Hinds County, Mississippi, on January 20, 1970, within one month of the expiration of the Mississippi limitation period, using state chancery attachment proceedings against resident creditors of Searle, a non-resident of Mississippi.
The case was removed to federal court, and upon defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction, the Judge to whom the case was assigned found that the federal court had in rem jurisdiction, but declined to rule on whether jurisdiction in personam had been established. Following a re-assignment of cases assigning this case to the undersigned Judge, defendant renewed its motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction on the grounds that defendant is not amenable to personal jurisdiction in that it has not qualified to do business in Mississippi and conducts no business in Mississippi, and the action being in rem may not be maintained by a non-resident plaintiff against a nonresident defendant under the due process or commerce clause of the U. S. Constitution. This Court found that the attempted service of process on the Secretary of State of Mississippi under the long arm statute was ineffective in that no part of plaintiff's cause of action accrued in this state or grew out of any tort, in whole or in part, committed by defendant in this state and that defendant had not had the "minimal contacts" otherwise necessary. As to the asserted jurisdiction in rem, the Court cited Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 174, 24 L.Ed. 565, to the effect that such a procedure is a just and legitimate exercise of a state's authority to hold and appropriate property owned by the non-resident attachment debtors to satisfy the claims of its own citizens. However, where, as here, plaintiff was a nonresident, and defendant was found to be a non-resident, the Court held that, Mississippi having no interest in the case, jurisdiction should be denied. It was this decision that the Fifth Circuit panel reversed. Although not specifically disturbing this Court's finding that Searle's activities in Mississippi lacked the requisite minimal contacts under Mississippi law to support personal jurisdiction, the Fifth Circuit panel nonetheless had this to say: . Prior to this language the panel had said: .
With this language in mind the Court turns to the motion before it now. It begins its consideration with Sections 142 and 143, Restatement of the Law, Second, "Conflict of Laws 2d", page 396:
Under "Comments" pertaining to Section 142(1), it is stated that, as between states, application of subsection (1) is permissible under full faith and credit. Wells v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 345 U.S. 514, 73 S.Ct. 856, 97 L.Ed. 1211.
In the comments on Subsection (2), it is stated that, except for Section 143, each state determines for itself when a claim becomes stale, and hence maintenance of an action in the state of the forum is not ordinarily precluded by the fact that it is barred by the statute of limitations of another state, unless the bar of this latter statute is made applicable by a borrowing statute of the forum.
As to Section 143, the comments under this section indicate that application of the rule depends upon the local law of the forum, that is, it is for the courts of each state to determine the circumstances in which the rule is applicable.
Mississippi's so-called "borrowing statute", Section 15-1-65, is as follows:
"When a cause of action has accrued in some other state or in a foreign country, and by the law of such state or county, or of some other state and county where the defendant has resided before he resided in this state, an action thereon cannot be maintained by reason of lapse of time, then no action thereon shall be maintained in this state".
Except for the fact that the defendant in Kershaw v. Sterling Drug, Inc., 5 Cir., 415 F.2d 1009, qualified to do and was doing business in Mississippi at the time plaintiff Kershaw's cause of action accrued, the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers Corp.
...counsel has employed similar arguments, and has succeeded in resurrecting a claim "stale" in Kansas, in at least one other case—Steele v. G. D. Searle, the various reported orders in which will be discussed below. This fact, and the ready availability of transfer as was effected in this cas......
-
Shewbrooks v. A.C. and S., Inc., 56014
...Litton Systems, Inc., 607 F.Supp. 30 (S.D.Miss.1984); Schreiber v. Allis-Chalmers, 448 F.Supp. 1079 (D.Kan.1978); Steele v. G.D. Searle & Co., 422 F.Supp. 560 (S.D.Miss.1976); Cummings v. Cowan, 390 F.Supp. 1251 While not involving Mississippi cases, the rule is respected and adhered to in ......
-
White v. Malone Properties, Inc., 55195
...difference", 586 F.Supp. at 938. The same court had earlier bought the distinction hook, line and sinker. Steele v. G.D. Searle and Company, 422 F.Supp. 560 (S.D.Miss.1976).5 Nothing said in Cowan v. Ford Motor Company, 437 So.2d 46 (Miss.1983) is at odds with what we say here. In Cowan we ......
-
Morningstar v. General Motors Corp., Civ. A. No. 3:93-cv-186WS.
...by a minor pursuant to Kan. Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4)); Steele v. G.D. Searle & Co., 483 F.2d 339 (5th Cir.1973), upon remand, 422 F.Supp. 560 (S.D.Miss. 1976) (involving an action for personal injuries brought pursuant to Kan.Stat.Ann. § 60-513(a)(4)). However, it is apparent that these cas......