Mooney v. Brymer

616 F. Supp. 1417, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16379
District Court, E.D. Missouri·Decided August 29, 1985·No. No. 84-1272 C (4)·Published·Cited by 2 cases

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAHILL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on third-party defendant Michael Frierdich’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and on third-party plaintiff’s request for an oral hearing.

[1418]*1418This Court in a memorandum and order dated December 11, 1984, dismissed defendant Frierdich (now third-party defendant Frierdich) from this lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. To date, there has been nothing added to the record that would indicate that third-party defendant Frierdich engaged in any activities within the state of Missouri so as to meet the minimum contacts requirement as set out in Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1976), and Scullin Steel v. National Ry. Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 309, 311 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, the Court still lacks personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant Frierdich, and therefore, his motion to dismiss the third-party complaint will be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that third-party defendant Frierdich’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that third-party plaintiffs request for oral argument is DENIED.

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

Mooney v. Brymer, 616 F. Supp. 1417, 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16379 (E.D. Mo. 1985).

616 F. Supp. 1417 (Mooney v. Brymer) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Mooney v. Frierdich
784 F.2d 875 (Eighth Circuit, 1986)