From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Juszczak v. Huber Mfg. Co.

United States District Court, W. D. New York
Jan 26, 1953
13 F.R.D. 434 (W.D.N.Y. 1953)

Summary

In Juszczak v. Hubber Mfg. Co., 13 F.R.D. 434 (W.D.N.Y.1953), defendant, prior to answer and/or motion, appeared by its attorneys, and three stipulations extending its time to answer were thereafter entered into.

Summary of this case from Marcus v. Textile Banking Co.

Opinion

Action against an Ohio corporation which had no place of business, stock of merchandise, or officer or employee in New York and which was not qualified to do business in New York. The corporation was served with process by the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio, in Ohio, and proof of service was filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of New York. The corporation moved to set aside the service of summons. The District Court, Knight, Chief Judge, held that New York federal District Court had no jurisdiction over defendant, notwithstanding that defendant had appeared and had been granted three stipulations extending time to answer.

Motion granted.

Adel & Barlow, Buffalo, N.Y., for plaintiff.

Dudley, Stowe & Sawyer, Buffalo, N.Y., for defendant.


KNIGHT, Chief Judge.

Defendant has moved for an order quashing the attempted service of the summons and complaint upon the defendant and to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction, insufficiency of process and the insufficiency of the attempted service of said process on the defendant and for such other and further relief as may be just and equitable.

From the motion papers it appears that the summons in the action was issued by the Clerk of this Court; that defendant is an Ohio corporation having its principal office at Marion, Ohio; that defendant has no place of business, stock of merchandise or officer or employee in the State of New York; that the defendant has not been engaged in business or qualified to do business within the State of New York; that the process of this Court was forwarded to the United States Marshal for the Northern District of Ohio for service on the defendant; that said marshal certified that service of such process had been made upon the defendant by leaving a copy thereof with the president of defendant at its offices in the city of Marion, Ohio, and that such proof of service was filed with the Clerk of this Court. Thereafter defendant appeared by Dudley, Stowe & Sawyer, Esqs., its attorneys. Three stipulations extending the time of defendant to answer were granted upon the order of the Clerk pursuant to our Rule 6(b). Prior to the expiration of the last stipulation, defendant served and filed the notice of motion herein asserting lack of jurisdiction and insufficiency of the attempted service of the process.

On the oral argument of this motion plaintiff contended that defendant, by the extensions of time to answer and by its voluntary appearance, had waived its right to attack the jurisdiction of this Court over the defendant with respect to the service of the summons and complaint beyond its territorial limits.

Effective service of the process of this Court in this action is limited to the territorial limits of this State. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 4(f), 28 U.S.C.A. Jurisdiction of the person may be raised by motion at any time before pleading or in the answer. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 12(b, h). None of the cases cited are helpful for the reason that they were decided prior to the amendment of Rule 12, except Saper v. Hague, 2 Cir., 186 F.2d 592, where service of a subpoena upon a witness was held invalid because it was not accompanied with the prior sum for witness fee and mileage and there was no waiver of the defect.

In the present case service of process was made in the State of Ohio and the defendant has not consented to the jurisdiction of this Court.

Defendant's motion to set aside the service of the summons and complaint is granted. Order may be presented in accordance with this memorandum.


Summaries of

Juszczak v. Huber Mfg. Co.

United States District Court, W. D. New York
Jan 26, 1953
13 F.R.D. 434 (W.D.N.Y. 1953)

In Juszczak v. Hubber Mfg. Co., 13 F.R.D. 434 (W.D.N.Y.1953), defendant, prior to answer and/or motion, appeared by its attorneys, and three stipulations extending its time to answer were thereafter entered into.

Summary of this case from Marcus v. Textile Banking Co.
Case details for

Juszczak v. Huber Mfg. Co.

Case Details

Full title:JUSZCZAK v. HUBER MFG. CO.

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

Date published: Jan 26, 1953

Citations

13 F.R.D. 434 (W.D.N.Y. 1953)

Citing Cases

Spearman v. Sterling Steamship Company

The general rule is that in obtaining a stipulation to extend time in which to answer is not a waiver of the…

Simms v. Stores, Inc.

In support of its position defendant cites numerous federal cases construing Fed.R.Civ.P. 12 (b), (g), and…