Nevertheless, a telephone listing is made under the name of the defendant with the telephone number of the representative listed, but said representative's name is not indicated.
Rule 4(d)(7) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A., provides that service of process on a foreign corporation is valid if effected in the manner prescribed by the law of the state in which the service is made.
We must therefore refer to the relevant Pennsylvania Statute on service which is found in 15 P.S. § 2852-1011. Pertinent parts thereof are as follows:
'B. Any foreign business corporation which shall have done any business in this Commonwealth, without procuring a certificate of authority to do so from the Department of State, shall be conclusively presumed to have designated the Secretary of the Commonwealth as its true and lawful attorney authorized to accept, on its behalf, service of process in any action arising out of acts or omissions of such corporation within this Commonwealth. * * * (Emphasis supplied.)
'C. For the purposes of this section, the entry of any corporation into this Commonwealth for the doing of a series of similar acts for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object, or doing a single act in this Commonwealth for such purpose, with the intention of thereby initiating a series of such acts, shall constitute 'doing business'.'
I am satisfied that the activity of defendant through its sales representatives constitutes a series of acts for the purpose of realizing pecuniary benefit within the requirements of Subsection C of the Act.
Nevertheless, in order to successfully effectuate service in Pennsylvania under this provision of law, plaintiff must meet the additional test of Subsection B which requires that the business conducted or activities performed by the foreign corporation in Pennsylvania must give rise to the injury complained of by the plaintiff. Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co., 202 F.2d 541, 3rd Cir.
Since the subject matter of this suit does not arise out of the sale of products by the defendant in Pennsylvania, the cause of action is unrelated to the activities of the defendant in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does not therefore meet the test laid down by the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and the Supreme Court of the United States, Partin v. Michaels Art Bronze Co., 3rd Cir., supra; International Shoe Co. v. State of Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316-317, 66 S. Ct. 154, 90 L. Ed. 95.
Motion to dismiss will be granted.
An appropriate order is entered.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.