Marlowe v. Redi-National Pest Eliminators, Inc.

Court of Appeals of Oregon

Marlowe v. Redi-National Pest Eliminators, Inc.

806 P.2d 1181, 106 Or. App. 419, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 472, 1991 WL 36647

CourtCourt of Appeals of Oregon

DecidedMarch 20, 1991

Docket89C 11083; CA A63716

StatusPublished

This text of 806 P.2d 1181 (Marlowe v. Redi-National Pest Eliminators, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Oregon primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Marlowe v. Redi-National Pest Eliminators, Inc., 806 P.2d 1181, 106 Or. App. 419, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 472, 1991 WL 36647 (Or. Ct. App. 1991).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action to rescind a franchise agreement. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, on the basis of this provision in the contract:

“Any action brought to enforce any right under this Agreement shall be brought in the Federal District or Superior Court in King County, Washington.”

Assuming that that provision applies to this case,¹ and no party challenges that, it would not preclude the Oregon court from acquiring personal jurisdiction over defendant, which was properly served with the summons and complaint. Defendant conceded at oral argument that the court had personal jurisdiction over it. The court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground.

Reversed and remanded.

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

PER CURIAM

Plaintiff brought this action to rescind a franchise agreement. The court granted defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, on the basis of this provision in the contract:

“Any action brought to enforce any right under this Agreement shall be brought in the Federal District or Superior Court in King County, Washington.”

Assuming that that provision applies to this case,¹ and no party challenges that, it would not preclude the Oregon court from acquiring personal jurisdiction over defendant, which was properly served with the summons and complaint. Defendant conceded at oral argument that the court had personal jurisdiction over it. The court erred in granting defendant’s motion to dismiss on that ground.

Reversed and remanded.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

806 P.2d 1181, 106 Or. App. 419, 1991 Ore. App. LEXIS 472, 1991 WL 36647, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/marlowe-v-redi-national-pest-eliminators-inc-orctapp-1991.