Pike Woodworking, Inc. v. 722 Construction Corp.

Loudoun County Circuit Court

Pike Woodworking, Inc. v. 722 Construction Corp.

32 Va. Cir. 156, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 802

CourtLoudoun County Circuit Court

DecidedOctober 12, 1993

DocketCase No. (Law) 14662

StatusPublished

This text of 32 Va. Cir. 156 (Pike Woodworking, Inc. v. 722 Construction Corp.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Loudoun County Circuit Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Pike Woodworking, Inc. v. 722 Construction Corp., 32 Va. Cir. 156, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 802 (Va. Super. Ct. 1993).

Pincite

Opinion

By Judge Thomas D. Horne

Counsel for the Defendant bonding company has requested that the court dismiss this cause without prejudice pursuant to § 8.01-265, Code of Virginia, as amended. It has been represented that Hartford Fire Insurance Company is incorporated under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Hartford. However, the agent who executed the bond on its behalf maintains his office in Alexandria, Virginia.

While this case involves a Maryland construction project, there does not appear to be any real hardship to the parties or their witnesses occasioned by a venue in Virginia across the Potomac River from that requested by Hartford. The general contractor against whom the instant action has been brought is a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia. In addition, the president and secretary/treasurer of the corporation against whom relief is also sought are residents of the Commonwealth. It is to be noted that no service has been effected upon these individuals. Additionally, no action could be taken against them as a suggestion in bankruptcy has been filed in this cause.

While the court may be called upon to interpret Maryland law in the course of this litigation, it does not find sufficient good cause to dismiss this case as to Hartford in favor of a Maryland forum.

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

By Judge Thomas D. Horne

Counsel for the Defendant bonding company has requested that the court dismiss this cause without prejudice pursuant to § 8.01-265, Code of Virginia, as amended. It has been represented that Hartford Fire Insurance Company is incorporated under the laws of Connecticut with its principal place of business in Hartford. However, the agent who executed the bond on its behalf maintains his office in Alexandria, Virginia.

While this case involves a Maryland construction project, there does not appear to be any real hardship to the parties or their witnesses occasioned by a venue in Virginia across the Potomac River from that requested by Hartford. The general contractor against whom the instant action has been brought is a corporation organized under the laws of Virginia. In addition, the president and secretary/treasurer of the corporation against whom relief is also sought are residents of the Commonwealth. It is to be noted that no service has been effected upon these individuals. Additionally, no action could be taken against them as a suggestion in bankruptcy has been filed in this cause.

While the court may be called upon to interpret Maryland law in the course of this litigation, it does not find sufficient good cause to dismiss this case as to Hartford in favor of a Maryland forum.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

32 Va. Cir. 156, 1993 Va. Cir. LEXIS 802, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/pike-woodworking-inc-v-722-construction-corp-vaccloudoun-1993.