Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

AQUARIUM PHARMS., INC. v. INDUSTRIAL PRESSING & PA

May 8, 1973

AQUARIUM PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
v.
INDUSTRIAL PRESSING & PACKAGING, INC.


Weiner, District Judge.


The opinion of the court was delivered by: WEINER

Weiner, District Judge.

 The defendant in this diversity action, Industrial Pressing & Packaging, Inc. ("Industrial"), is incorporated and has its principal offices in the State of Wisconsin. Plaintiff, Aquarium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Aquarium"), is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal offices located in Perkasie, Pennsylvania. Aquarium alleges that the defendant manufactured and supplied them with certain types of tablets for use in the tropical fish industry, that the product was defective, and that it is entitled to the appropriate damages.

 Industrial has requested this Court to dismiss the suit, arguing that, as it is a non-resident corporation which does not do business in the Commonwealth, there is no adequate basis for the imposition of in personam jurisdiction given the facts of the instant case. In the alternative, Industrial asks us to transfer this matter to the Eastern District of Wisconsin pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 1404(a).

 Defendant was served with a summons and complaint on March 14, 1973 through service on the Secretary of the Commonwealth pursuant to an Order of this Court.

 In its accompanying affidavit, Industrial states that it maintains no offices in Pennsylvania and has not done any business in the State other than the making of a single shipment of work-in-progress inventory belonging to the plaintiff upon telephone request by the plaintiff to their Wisconsin office. Thereby, it is contended that such limited activity does not constitute "doing business" under the relevant statutes and case law and that dismissal is appropriate.

 I

 Pennsylvania has only recently amended its "long-arm" statute and this amended version has not, to our knowledge, been considered by any court as of this date.

 
(a) General Rule. -- Any of the following shall constitute "doing business" for the purposes of this chapter:
 
. . .
 
(2) The doing of a single act in this Commonwealth for the purpose of thereby realizing pecuniary benefit or otherwise accomplishing an object with the intention of initiating a series of such acts.
 
(3) The shipping of merchandise directly or indirectly into or through ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.