Alcoa Inc. v. Alcan Inc.

3 Citing cases

  1. Cunningham v. Capital Advance Solutions, LLC

    Civil Action No.: 17-13050 (FLW) (D.N.J. Nov. 20, 2018)   Cited 1 times

    As a threshold issue, although Capital's telemarketing activities may be imputed to EBF, the parties' agency relationship, with nothing more, is not sufficient to subject EBF to the Court's specific jurisdiction: "[t]he mere fact that a principal-agent relationship exists does not confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident principal." Scott v. Lackey, No. 02-1586, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4350, at *35 (M.D. Pa. Jan. 20, 2010) (citation omitted); see also Rychel v. Yates, No. 09-1514, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 38824, at *38 (W.D. Pa. April 11, 2011); Alcoa Inc. v. Alcan Inc., No. 06-451, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 51565, at *8 (D. Del. July 17, 2007); Myelle v. Am. Cyanamid Co., No. 92-5243, 1993 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3977, at *6 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 1, 1993); Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd., 772 F. Supp. 1458, 1464 (D. Del. 1991). Rather, Plaintiff, in order to satisfy his jurisdictional burden, must demonstrate that EBF purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting business in the forum state of New Jersey through the actions of its agent, i.e., Capital.

  2. Nespresso USA, Inc. v. Ethical Coffee Co. SA

    263 F. Supp. 3d 498 (D. Del. 2017)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that plaintiff failed to make a prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction regarding a defendant foreign parent corporation, where that foreign defendant provided declarations stating that it had no role in the design, marketing or sale of the accused products and did not engage in any related manufacturing or sales activity in the United States; the fact that the foreign defendant's United States-based subsidiary was responsible for introducing the accused products into the United States was insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction over the foreign parent defendant pursuant to the stream of commerce theory

    Furthermore, "regulatory filings present[ing] the assets, liabilities, and financial earnings of its subsidiaries as one indistinguishable whole" do not prove agency. Alcoa, Inc. v. Alcan, Inc. , 495 F.Supp.2d 459, 462 (D. Del. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted). For the same reasons, Nestlé setting the corporate policies and procedures for all subsidiaries is not sufficient evidence of agency.

  3. Lower Sioux Indian Comm. v. Kraus-Anderson

    No. A09-777 (Minn. Ct. App. Mar. 2, 2010)

    See Nottingham v. Gen. Amer. Commc'ns Corp., 811 F.2d 873, 880 (5th Cir. 1987) ("Rule 19 does not require joinder of persons against whom [defendants] have a claim for contribution."); Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 1006, 1016 (8th Cir. 1984) (rejecting argument that party was necessary based on duty to indemnify: "[c]omplete relief can be granted as between [the plaintiff and defendant] without the presence of [the indemnitor]"); Alcoa Inc. v. ALcan Inc., 495 F. Supp. 2d 459, 465 (D. Del. 2007) (rejecting argument that city was necessary party to action determining liability for city-ordered remediation costs, explaining that underlying remediation order would not be called into question); Babb v. Mid-America Auto Exch., Inc., No. 06-2230-CM, 2006 WL 2714273, at * 2 (D. Kan. Sept. 22, 2006) ("[A] defendant's potential right to contribution or indemnification from an absentee does not make the absentee necessary under [r]ule 19." (citing 4 James Wm. Moore et al., Moore's Federal Practice § 19.06(2) (3d ed. 1997))).