Tudesco v. Publishers Company, Civ. A. No. 30409.
| Decision Date | 06 August 1964 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 30409. |
| Citation | 232 F. Supp. 638 |
| Parties | Ralph TUDESCO v. PUBLISHERS COMPANY. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
Maurice J. Friedman, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
Marvin Comisky, of Blank, Rudenko, Klaus & Rome, Morris L. Weisberg, Philadelphia, Pa., for defendant.
This case is now before the Court on defendant's motion pursuant to Rule 12 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff's action or, in the alternative to quash the return and service of summons.
Defendant claims it is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Maryland and is not subject to the service of process within the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Furthermore, defendant contends that it has been served improperly with process in this action because it has neither expressly nor impliedly, by any act or omission to act, or by operation of law or otherwise, appointed the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to receive service of process for it; and that the service of process made upon the Secretary of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and by registered mail to the defendant, is invalid under the rules of this Court and the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
Plaintiff alleges in his complaint that he is a citizen of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and that on or about August 30, 1960 he entered into an oral contract with the defendant, which was represented at that time by its president, Charles W. Lockyer. Under the terms of the alleged contract plaintiff was to receive a finder's fee of ten percent (10%) of such financing as he could be instrumental in procuring for the defendant; and in addition, plaintiff was to have an option to purchase 100,000 shares of defendant's Class "A" Common Stock at the price of $2.50 per share, providing the said option was exercised within a five year period. Plaintiff further avers that in performance of his part of the agreement he contacted an individual who arranged with several New York brokerage houses to secure financing for defendant by means of a public stock issue.
It is to be noted in the petition by plaintiff to the Court requesting substituted service upon the defendant plaintiff conceded to the following: (1) defendant was not incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (2) defendant maintained its principal place of business in Washington, D. C., and has no offices or other places of business within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania; (3) defendant has no agent authorized to accept service in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has not appointed the Secretary of the Commonwealth or any other public officer as a statutory agent to receive service of process.
Rule 4(d) (7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that service shall be made:
"(7) Upon a defendant of any class referred to in paragraph (1) or (3) of this subdivision of this rule, it is also sufficient if the summons and complaint are served in the manner prescribed by any statute of the United States or in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the district court is held for the service of summons or other like process upon any such defendant in an action...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Telephonic, Inc. v. Rosenblum
...case involving facts almost identical to those in the present case, upon the issue of 'transacting business,' was Tudesco v. Publishers Company, 232 F.Supp. 638 (E.D.Pa.1964). The court in that case held that the Pennsylvania statute providing long-arm jurisdiction over those 'doing busines......
-
Columbia Metal Culvert Co. v. Kaiser Industries Corp.
...earlier version of the long-arm statute. Myers v. Mooney Aircraft Inc., 429 Pa. 177, 240 A.2d 505, 510 (1967). 10 In Tudesco v. Publishers Co., 232 F.Supp. 638 (E.D.Pa.1964), the president of a foreign corporation met with a Pennsylvania resident in Philadelphia, entered into an oral contra......
-
Strick Corp. v. Cravens Homalloy (Sheffield) Ltd., Civ. A. No. 71-2160.
...to "enter" the Commonwealth for the purpose of "doing business" as a reason for granting a motion to dismiss. See, Tudesco v. Publishers Company, 232 F.Supp. 638 (E.D.Pa.1964); Optico Corp. v. Standard Tool Co., supra; Meench v. Raymond Corp., 283 F.Supp. 68 (E.D.Pa. 1968); Miller v. Tulsa ......
-
Plum Tree, Inc. v. Rouse Company, Civ. A. No. 71-2878.
...United States v. Berkowitz, 328 F.2d 358 (3rd Cir. 1964); Founds v. Shedaker, 278 F.Supp. 32 (E.D.Pa.1968); and Tudesco v. Publisher's Company, 232 F.Supp. 638 (E. D.Pa.1964) — it was the plaintiff who sought transfer, not the defendant. Such transfer was requested, and allowed by the court......