Zollo v. Turner & Newall Ltd.

E.D. Pennsylvania

Zollo v. Turner & Newall Ltd.

516 F. Supp. 742, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12862

CourtDistrict Court, E.D. Pennsylvania

DecidedJune 22, 1981

DocketCiv. A. Nos. 80-0709, 80-1093, 80-3646 and 81-0917

StatusPublished

This text of 516 F. Supp. 742 (Zollo v. Turner & Newall Ltd.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Zollo v. Turner & Newall Ltd., 516 F. Supp. 742, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12862 (E.D. Pa. 1981).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILES, District Judge.

In Henderson, defendant Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Identical motions have been denied consistently by other judges of this court. E. g., Hopwood v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., C.A. No. 80-1141 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 18, 1980) (Cahn, J.); Johnson v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., C.A. No. 78-464 (E.D.Pa. June 29, 1979); see Defendant’s Memorandum, at 6 (citing other cases). I recently denied the identical motion in Malander v. North American Asbestos Corp., C.A. No. 80-3866 (E.D.Pa. April 8, 1981). The motion in Henderson therefore will be denied.

Asbestos Corporation is a defendant in other cases before me. In Zoilo, Campbell, and Monaco, defendant has not moved to dismiss. Filing the identical motion in those cases would be a futile act, expending resources of clients, counsel, and court. Nonetheless, counsel may feel obliged to perform a futile act in order to protect the record. The court can reduce wasteful motion practice and protect the record for defendant by deeming the motion to have been made and denied in other cases. I therefore shall enter an order denying the motion in all of the captioned cases.

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

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

GILES, District Judge.

In Henderson, defendant Asbestos Corporation, Ltd., moves to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Identical motions have been denied consistently by other judges of this court. E. g., Hopwood v. Bell Asbestos Mines, Ltd., C.A. No. 80-1141 (E.D.Pa. Dec. 18, 1980) (Cahn, J.); Johnson v. Turner & Newall, Ltd., C.A. No. 78-464 (E.D.Pa. June 29, 1979); see Defendant’s Memorandum, at 6 (citing other cases). I recently denied the identical motion in Malander v. North American Asbestos Corp., C.A. No. 80-3866 (E.D.Pa. April 8, 1981). The motion in Henderson therefore will be denied.

Asbestos Corporation is a defendant in other cases before me. In Zoilo, Campbell, and Monaco, defendant has not moved to dismiss. Filing the identical motion in those cases would be a futile act, expending resources of clients, counsel, and court. Nonetheless, counsel may feel obliged to perform a futile act in order to protect the record. The court can reduce wasteful motion practice and protect the record for defendant by deeming the motion to have been made and denied in other cases. I therefore shall enter an order denying the motion in all of the captioned cases.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

516 F. Supp. 742, 1981 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12862, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/zollo-v-turner-newall-ltd-paed-1981.