Coleman v. Am. Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc.

26 Citing cases

  1. Penn-Central Transp. Co.

    49 F.R.D. 58 (D. Md. 1969)   Cited 10 times
    In McGonigle, this Court quoted extensively from and relied heavily upon Judge Friendly's opinion in Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1968).

    There remains the contention of the individual third-party defendants that this Court lacks jurisdiction over them as persons because they are not amenable to service in Maryland under Maryland standards, including its long-arm statute, even though service was properly made on them pursuant to the 100-mile bulge provisions of Rule 4(f). That proposition was recently presented to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and was rejected by that Court in Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1968). In that case, a longshoreman, allegedly injured while aboard the defendant's ship in Hoboken, New Jersey, sued the shipowner, and the latter filed a third-party complaint claiming (at 251):

  2. Pierce v. Globemaster Baltimore, Inc.

    49 F.R.D. 63 (D. Md. 1969)   Cited 12 times
    Adopting air-mile test to allow service of process in Pottstown, Pennsylvania from Baltimore, Maryland

    See Kaplan, Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 1961-1963, 77 Harv.L.Rev. 601, 633, quoted from and discussed in McGonigle v. Penn-Central Transportation Company, supra .           In McGonigle, this Court quoted extensively from and relied heavily upon Judge Friendly's opinion in Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1968). In Coleman and in McGonigle, the original lawsuits were grounded in federal question jurisdiction.

  3. Quinones v. Pennsylvania General Ins. Co.

    804 F.2d 1167 (10th Cir. 1986)   Cited 40 times
    Upholding the trial court's denial of jewelry store owner's testimony about how much he paid his full-time watchmaker as evidence of Plaintiff's loss of earning capacity while allowing Plaintiff's tax returns for three years to be admitted

    (Emphasis in original.) Writing for the court in Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 405 F.2d 250, 252 (2d Cir. 1968), Judge Friendly looked to the minimum contacts of the third-party defendant with the entire state in which bulge service occurred, holding that if the state of service would have personal jurisdiction, the forum state could obtain jurisdiction through Rule 4(f) service. All lower court opinions that have been found, but one, agree with the holding in either Sprow or Coleman.

  4. Sprow v. Hartford Ins. Co.

    594 F.2d 412 (5th Cir. 1979)   Cited 24 times
    Holding that 100-mile distance under former Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(f) is to be measured "as the crow flies"

    This argument follows the decisions of some federal courts which hold that 4(f) relates only to the manner and scope of extraterritorial service of process, and not to amenability of the party served to the forum's jurisdiction. Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250, 253 (2d Cir. 1968); Pillsbury Co. v. Delta Boat Barge Rental, Inc., 72 F.R.D. 630, 632 (E.D.La. 1976); Spearing v. Manhattan Oil Transportation Corp., 375 F. Supp. 764, 771 (S.D.N.Y. 1974); Karlsen v. Hanff, 278 F. Supp. 864, 865 (S.D.N.Y. 1967); see also Deloro Smelting R. Co. v. Engelhard Minerals C. Corp., 313 F. Supp. 470 (D.N.J. 1970); McGonigle v. Penn-Central Trans. Co., 49 F.R.D. 58 (D.Md. 1969). These cases state that Rule 4(f) may be invoked only if the jurisdictional standards of due process are otherwise satisfied.

  5. Scott v. United States

    Case No. 3:18-CV-00629-NJR (S.D. Ill. Oct. 19, 2020)

    This provision appeared in a 1963 amendment to former Rule 4(f) as a response to the increasing incidence of multiparty legislation in federal courts and a desire to ensure that a single district would be able to grant complete relief in multiparty actions. See Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250, 251 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J.); see also Charles Alan Wright et al., 4 Fed. Prac. & Proc. § 1127. Rudomiotov seeks to argue that the key question in determining whether a defendant can be subjected to jurisdiction through exercise of Rule 4(k)(1)(B) is not whether they have any contact with the "bulge" area, but rather whether a defendant located within the bulge has contacts with the actual forum state.

  6. Heft v. AAI Corp.

    355 F. Supp. 2d 757 (M.D. Pa. 2005)   Cited 72 times
    Addressing the appropriate legal standard with which to review a motion to dismiss for improper venue

    Only the Fifth Amendment governs the due process rights of individuals before the federal courts, whether invoked on grounds of diversity or federal question, and the only relevant "forum" for purposes of the constitutional analysis is the United States as a whole.See Miss. Publ'g Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U.S. 438, 442 (1946); Coleman v. Am. Exp. Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250, 251-53 (2d Cir. 1968) (Friendly, J.); Gamble v. Lyons Precast Erectors, Inc., 825 F. Supp. 92, 94 (E.D. Pa. 1993).But cf. Pinker, 292 F.3d at 369 (suggesting that Fourteenth Amendment applies to district courts sitting in diversity) (citing IMO Indus., Inc. v. Kiekert AG, 155 F.3d 254, 259 (3d Cir. 1998)). FED. R. CIV. P. 4(k)(1)(A); see cases cited supra note 14.

  7. Ruffolo v. Oppenheimer Co., Inc.

    949 F.2d 33 (2d Cir. 1991)   Cited 16 times
    Holding that where a complaint was dismissed as to only one of two defendants "the district court order of dismissal did not terminate the action as to any of the claims or parties"

    On occasion, we have remanded for a rule 54(b) certification and noted that should a timely appeal follow that action, we would "consider the appeal on the briefs already received and the argument already heard." Chemical Bank v. Slaner (In re Duplan Corp.), 591 F.2d 139, 148 (2d Cir. 1978) (citing Coleman v. American Export Isbrandsten Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250, 251 n. 1 (2d Cir. 1968); Wolfson v. Blumberg, 340 F.2d 89, 90 (2d Cir. 1965); 10 Charles A. Wright Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2660, at 89 n. 87 (1973)). Although, as previously stated, no rule 54(b) certification will be appropriate on remand in this case, we would nonetheless be disposed to follow the quoted procedure if the case is put in appealable form upon remand and a new appeal presents essentially the same issues that have been tendered to us.

  8. In re Duplan Corp.

    591 F.2d 139 (2d Cir. 1978)   Cited 65 times

    However, F.R. Civ.P. 54(b) would authorize the district court to confer the finality requisite to appeal on so much of its January 17, 1978 order as dismissed the Seventeenth Counterclaim of the Reorganization Trustee. If the Reorganization Trustee should apply for such a certificate, and if the district court should see fit to grant it, and the Reorganization Trustee should take a timely appeal, we, in accordance with our usual practice, will consider the appeal on the briefs already received and the argument already heard. See Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250, 251 n. 1 (2 Cir. 1968); Wolfson v. Blumberg, 340 F.2d 89, 90 (2 Cir. 1965); 10 Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2660 at 89 n. 87 (1973). If the Banks should apply for a certificate under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) with respect to the district court's February 22, 1978 order and if the district court should decide to issue such a certificate and leave to appeal should be granted, the appeal could also be heard on the papers now before us without further argument.

  9. In re Complaint of Rationis Enterprises, Inc.

    210 F. Supp. 2d 421 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 6 times
    Holding that participation in litigation for more than one year forfeits right to litigate issue of personal jurisdiction

    Even had HMD not forfeited its defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, this court would have general jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 4(k), which allows for service of a third-party complaint even in an adjacent state but not more than 100 miles from the courthouse from which the summons issues, due process being satisfied if the third-party defendant has minimum contacts with the 100 mile bulge area. See Flood v. Rite Aid of N.J., Inc., No. 84 Civ. 6502(CBM), 1986 WL 2965 at *2 (S.D.N.Y. March 4, 1986) (citing Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, Inc., 405 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1968)). "The due process test for personal jurisdiction has two related components: the 'minimum contacts' inquiry and the 'reasonableness' inquiry."

  10. Big Baby Co. v. Schecter

    812 F. Supp. 442 (S.D.N.Y. 1993)   Cited 6 times

    Up Adam does not deny that its products are sold in the Southern District of New York and promoted to customers here, thus causing it to be in the position of affirmatively seeking the protection of the law of New York. Under the circumstances, I find dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction inappropriate at this stage, although upon a further showing reconsideration might justify a different result or the holding of an evidentiary hearing under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(d). See generally Coleman v. American Export Isbrandtsen Lines, 405 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1968). The question of personal jurisdiction need not be determined, however, since I grant transfer to a district where personal jurisdiction concededly exists.