From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jizchak Bier Limited v. Wells, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Mar 17, 1970
310 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

Opinion


310 F.Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1970) JIZCHAK BIER LTD., Plaintiff, v. WELLS, INC., Defendant. No. 69 Civ. 4417. United States District Court, S.D. New York. March 17, 1970

        Solomon B. Terkeltoub, New York City, for plaintiff. Parr, Doherty, Polk & Sargent, New York City, for defendant; by Robert S. Newman, New York City, of counsel.

        MEMORANDUM

        POLLACK, District Judge.

        Counsel appearing on behalf of a corporation with the name of the defendant has moved to quash service of process and to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the Court lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendant. The jurisdiction of the Court purports to be based on diversity of citizenship. However, the jurisdictional averment in the complaint is patently insufficient under the statute. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(c). The present complaint contains no allegation of the principal place of business of either corporate party. Moreover, the citizenship of the defendant is not alleged; there is no allegation of the state of incorporation of the defendant and the mere assertion that the defendant is a corporation does not sufficiently identify the party intended to be sued. See, e.g., John Birch Society v. National Broadcasting Co., 377 F.2d 194 (2d Cir. 1967); McCurdy v. Greyhound Corp., 346 F.2d 224, 225 n. 1 (3d Cir. 1965); Wymard v. McCloskey & Co., Inc., 342 F.2d 495 (3d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U.S. 823, 86 S.Ct. 52, 15 L.Ed.2d 68; Aetna Ins. Co. of Hartford, Conn. v. Southern, Waldrip & Harvick, 198 F.Supp. 505, 508 (N.D.Calif.1961); Brandt v. Bay City Super Market, 182 F.Supp. 937 (N.D.Calif.1960).

For an appropriate form of allegation see Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Appendix of Forms, Form 2(a) (28 U.S.C.Fed.R.Civ.P.Rules 1 to 11, Supp. 1970).

        Accordingly, the merits of the motions pending before the Court are not reached. The complaint is defective and on the Court's own motion the complaint is dismissed with leave to file an amended complaint within 20 days from the date of this order. See, 28 U.S.C. § 1653.

        So ordered.


Summaries of

Jizchak Bier Limited v. Wells, Inc.

United States District Court, S.D. New York.
Mar 17, 1970
310 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)
Case details for

Jizchak Bier Limited v. Wells, Inc.

Case Details

Full title:JIZCHAK BIER LTD., Plaintiff, v. WELLS, INC., Defendant.

Court:United States District Court, S.D. New York.

Date published: Mar 17, 1970

Citations

310 F. Supp. 843 (S.D.N.Y. 1970)

Citing Cases

Barnhill v. Insurance Co. of North America

In other words, Rule 8(a) has been applied in this context to require that a corporate party allege both its…

George Bishop v. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

"In other words, Rule 8(a) has been applied in this context to require that a corporate party allege both its…