Herrington Corp. v. ICON International, Inc.

Fairfax County Circuit Court

Herrington Corp. v. ICON International, Inc.

31 Va. Cir. 253, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176

CourtFairfax County Circuit Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1993

DocketCase No. (Law) 123163

StatusPublished

This text of 31 Va. Cir. 253 (Herrington Corp. v. ICON International, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Fairfax County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Herrington Corp. v. ICON International, Inc., 31 Va. Cir. 253, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176 (Va. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Michael P. McWeeny

This matter comes before the court on the Defendants’ Demurrer based on lack of personal jurisdiction. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the supplemental memoranda submitted by counsel, the court overrules the Demurrer. Furthermore, the court finds that the Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the court.

A demurrer is not the proper mechanism to raise the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction in this case. The purpose of a demurrer is to attack the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. A demurrer admits all facts alleged as true. By filing a demurrer, the Defendants have admitted factual allegations that the Defendants are doing business in Virginia and/or are deriving substantial revenue from doing business in Virginia. (Motion for Judgment, paras. 4 and 5.) Defendants’ arguments on jurisdiction address factual issues and are not proper on demurrer. And because demurrer’s possess unique characteristics, the court cannot deem a pleading filed as a demurrer to be a motion to quash.

Moreover, the Defendants have waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by virtue of their motions for extensions of time to file late responsive pleadings and discovery responses. A consent order endorsed by Defendants’ counsel was submitted to the court on May 14, 1993, approximately two weeks before the Demurrer by special appearance was filed. The court finds that counsel’s endorsement on the consent order constitutes a general appearance by Defendants in this matter.

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

By Judge Michael P. McWeeny

This matter comes before the court on the Defendants’ Demurrer based on lack of personal jurisdiction. After hearing oral argument and reviewing the supplemental memoranda submitted by counsel, the court overrules the Demurrer. Furthermore, the court finds that the Defendants are subject to the jurisdiction of the court.

A demurrer is not the proper mechanism to raise the issue of lack of personal jurisdiction in this case. The purpose of a demurrer is to attack the legal sufficiency of the pleadings. A demurrer admits all facts alleged as true. By filing a demurrer, the Defendants have admitted factual allegations that the Defendants are doing business in Virginia and/or are deriving substantial revenue from doing business in Virginia. (Motion for Judgment, paras. 4 and 5.) Defendants’ arguments on jurisdiction address factual issues and are not proper on demurrer. And because demurrer’s possess unique characteristics, the court cannot deem a pleading filed as a demurrer to be a motion to quash.

Moreover, the Defendants have waived any objection to personal jurisdiction by virtue of their motions for extensions of time to file late responsive pleadings and discovery responses. A consent order endorsed by Defendants’ counsel was submitted to the court on May 14, 1993, approximately two weeks before the Demurrer by special appearance was filed. The court finds that counsel’s endorsement on the consent order constitutes a general appearance by Defendants in this matter.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

31 Va. Cir. 253, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 176, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/herrington-corp-v-icon-international-inc-vaccfairfax-1993.