UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 22, 1981
MICHAEL D. ZOLLO, et al.
TURNER & NEWALL LIMITED, et al.; CECIL CAMPBELL, et al. v. TURNER & NEWALL LIMITED, et al.; ANGELO MONACO, et al. v. CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., et al.; JOSEPH HENDERSON, et al. v. CAREY CANADIAN MINES, LTD., et al.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: GILES
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
In Henderson, defendant Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Identical motions have been denied consistently by other judges of this court. E.g., Hopwood v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., C.A. No. 80-1141 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 1980) (Cahn, J.); Johnson v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., C.A. No. 78-464 (E.D. Pa. June 29, 1979); see Defendant's Memorandum, at 6 (citing other cases). I recently denied the identical motion in Malander v. North American Asbestos Corp., C.A. No. 80-3866 (E.D. Pa. April 8, 1981). The motion in Henderson therefore will be denied.
Asbestos Corporation is a defendant in other cases before me. In Zollo, Campbell, and Monaco, defendant has not moved to dismiss. Filing the identical motion in those cases would be a futile act, expending resources of clients, counsel, and court. Nonetheless, counsel may feel obliged to perform a futile act in order to protect the record. The court can reduce wasteful motion practice and protect the record for defendant by deeming the motion to have been made and denied in other cases. I therefore shall enter an order denying the motion in all of the captioned cases.
AND NOW, this 22nd day of June, 1981, it is hereby ORDERED that:
Defendant Asbestos Corporation's Motion to Dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED.
© 1992-2004 VersusLaw Inc.