Chem Lab Products, Inc., a Corporation v. Frank N. Stepanek, Jr.

Ninth Circuit

Chem Lab Products, Inc., a Corporation v. Frank N. Stepanek, Jr.

554 F.2d 371, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 229, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13281

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

DecidedMay 23, 1977

Docket76-2251

StatusPublished

Cited by19 cases

This text of 554 F.2d 371 (Chem Lab Products, Inc., a Corporation v. Frank N. Stepanek, Jr.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Chem Lab Products, Inc., a Corporation v. Frank N. Stepanek, Jr., 554 F.2d 371, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 229, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13281 (9th Cir. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Chem Lab Products, Inc. (Chem Lab) filed an action against Frank N. Stepanek, Jr. (Stepanek), president of Aspen Industries, Inc. (Aspen), to have a patent owned by Aspen declared invalid. The District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Stepanek. We affirm.

Stepanek is a citizen of New York. He neither resides nor conducts business in California. He was served in Tully, New York, under the California long arm statute.

To exercise in personam jurisdiction, a defendant must properly avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).

Chem Lab asserts that Stepanek personally authorized Aspen’s attorneys to write to Chem Lab in California, charging it with patent infringement. This letter, Chem Lab asserts, supplies the requisite contact between Stepanek and the forum state to justify in personam jurisdiction.

Stepanek, in an uncontradicted affidavit, states that Aspen’s board of directors authorized the letter and that he only communicated that authorization to Aspen’s attorneys. The burden was then upon Chem Lab to establish the jurisdictional facts. The mere allegations of a complaint, when contradicted by affidavits, are not enough to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967). Facts, not mere allegations, must be the touchstone.

The record here does not show that Stepanek committed any personal acts with consequences in California. The District Judge correctly determined that Stepanek lacks sufficient minimum contacts with California and that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction would violate “federal due process”. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Chem Lab Products, Inc. (Chem Lab) filed an action against Frank N. Stepanek, Jr. (Stepanek), president of Aspen Industries, Inc. (Aspen), to have a patent owned by Aspen declared invalid. The District Court dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction over Stepanek. We affirm.

Stepanek is a citizen of New York. He neither resides nor conducts business in California. He was served in Tully, New York, under the California long arm statute.

To exercise in personam jurisdiction, a defendant must properly avail himself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum state. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958).

Chem Lab asserts that Stepanek personally authorized Aspen’s attorneys to write to Chem Lab in California, charging it with patent infringement. This letter, Chem Lab asserts, supplies the requisite contact between Stepanek and the forum state to justify in personam jurisdiction.

Stepanek, in an uncontradicted affidavit, states that Aspen’s board of directors authorized the letter and that he only communicated that authorization to Aspen’s attorneys. The burden was then upon Chem Lab to establish the jurisdictional facts. The mere allegations of a complaint, when contradicted by affidavits, are not enough to confer personal jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant. Taylor v. Portland Paramount Corp., 383 F.2d 634, 639 (9th Cir. 1967). Facts, not mere allegations, must be the touchstone.

The record here does not show that Stepanek committed any personal acts with consequences in California. The District Judge correctly determined that Stepanek lacks sufficient minimum contacts with California and that the exercise of in personam jurisdiction would violate “federal due process”. International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945).

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

554 F.2d 371, 195 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 229, 1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 13281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/chem-lab-products-inc-a-corporation-v-frank-n-stepanek-jr-ca9-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack