Legal Opinion
Mickleburgh MacHinery Co. v. Pacific Economic Development Co.
District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Decided May 31, 1990No. Civ. A. 89-7781PublishedCited by 4 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
DITTER, District Judge.
Before me is defendant’s motion to dismiss this diversity complaint for lack of in personam jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(2). 1 Miekleburgh Machinery Co. Inc., a Pennsylvania citizen, alleges that Pacific Economic Development Co. (“PEDC”) breached a contract providing for an exclusive dealing relationship between the parties, whereby Miekleburgh would secure heavy machinery for PEDC’s overseas clients. Because I find that PEDC is within the jurisdiction of this court, I will deny its motion.
PEDC is a California corporation with…
2Cases cited14 opinions
- International Shoe Co. v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1945
- Burger King Corp. v. RudzewiczSupreme Court of the United States · 1985
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Helicopteros Nacionales De Colombia, S. A. v. HallSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
9 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by4 opinions
- Wolens v. American Airlines, Inc.Illinois Supreme Court · 1992
- Allied Leather Corp. v. Altama Delta Corp.District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · 1992
- Nationwide Contractor Audit Service, Inc. v. National Compliance Management Services, Inc.District Court, W.D. Pennsylvania · 2008
- Alan Hostetler Insurance Agents & Brokers Inc. v. KRS Restaurant Corp., Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Dauphin County1996