Legal Opinion
Melkaz International Inc. v. Flavor Innovation Inc.
District Court, E.D. New York
Decided April 29, 1996No. 95 CV 3358(JRB)PublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER
BARTELS, District Judge.
Defendants Flavor Innovation Inc. (“Flavor Innovation”) and Charlene Brach (collectively “Defendants”) move to dismiss Plaintiff Melkaz International Inc.’s (“Melkaz”) complaint in this diversity action under Federal Rule 12(b)(2), (4) and (5) for improper service of process and lack of personal jurisdiction. In the alternative, Defendants move to quash service. For the reasons stated below, the motions are granted in part and denied in part.
Background
The following undisputed facts appear in the parties’ papers.1 Melkaz instituted the *636above-…
2Cases cited33 opinions
- World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. WoodsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1980
- Hanson v. DencklaSupreme Court of the United States · 1958
- Bruce Ball v. Metallurgie Hoboken-Overpelt, S.A.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1990
- Cutco Industries, Inc. v. Dennis E. NaughtonCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1986
- Hoffritz for Cutlery, Inc. And Edwin Jay, Inc. v. Amajac, Ltd. And Jack E. AyersCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1985
28 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Academy of Irm v. LVI Environmental Services, Inc.Court of Appeals of Maryland · 1997
- Link Group International, L.L.P. v. Toymax (H.K.) Ltd.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
- Tadco Construction Corp. v. PERI Framework Systems, Inc.District Court, E.D. New York · 2006
- James J. Polidoro v. The Law Firm of Jonathan D'Agostino, P.CDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2020
- LINK GROUP INTERN., LLP v. Toymax (HK) Ltd.District Court, D. Connecticut · 2000
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.