Iridium Industries, Inc. v. Wonder Marketing, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County Pennsylvania
What the Case Involved: Marks & Sokolov represented a California based defendant which was sued in Monroe County, Pennsylvania related to its purchase of 75,000 plastic tubes from a Pennsylvania distributor. The defendant had no office in Pennsylvania and made the purchases from California. Our firm moved to dismiss on the basis that the Pennsylvania court had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to a lack of minimum contacts with Pennsylvania.
Result: The court granted the motion to dismiss. In conducting its minimum contacts analysis, the court looked to determine whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of doing business in Pennsylvania pursuant to the factors set forth in Strick Corp. v. A.J.F. Warehouse Distributors, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 951 (E.D.Pa.1982), which is applicable when an out-of-state corporation contracts with a resident corporation for the purchase of goods. Following oral argument, the court determined: (1) the character of pre-contract negotiations were not extensive with defendant not dictating the terms of the contract, weighing in favor of defendant; (2) in-person negotiations was California, plaintiff sent purchase orders to California and email communications between California and Pennsylvania were merely incidental to the contract, weighing in favor of defendant; (3) there was no written contract to suggest where the parties intended to resolve disputes, with this this factor not weighing “substantially” in favor of plaintiff; and (4) because the product was more like a commodity, weighing in favor of defendant. The court further concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and substantial justice in that the burden upon defendant to defend the case in Pennsylvania outweighed any inconvenience to Plaintiff to litigate in California. Bruce S. Marks and Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.Iridium Industries, Inc. v. Wonder Marketing, Inc.
Court of Common Pleas, Monroe County Pennsylvania
What the Case Involved: Marks & Sokolov represented a California based defendant which was sued in Monroe County, Pennsylvania related to its purchase of 75,000 plastic tubes from a Pennsylvania distributor. The defendant had no office in Pennsylvania and made the purchases from California. Our firm moved to dismiss on the basis that the Pennsylvania court had no personal jurisdiction over the defendant due to a lack of minimum contacts with Pennsylvania.
Result: The court granted the motion to dismiss. In conducting its minimum contacts analysis, the court looked to determine whether the defendant “purposefully availed” itself of the privilege of doing business in Pennsylvania pursuant to the factors set forth in Strick Corp. v. A.J.F. Warehouse Distributors, Inc., 532 F. Supp. 951 (E.D.Pa.1982), which is applicable when an out-of-state corporation contracts with a resident corporation for the purchase of goods. Following oral argument, the court determined: (1) the character of pre-contract negotiations were not extensive with defendant not dictating the terms of the contract, weighing in favor of defendant; (2) in-person negotiations was California, plaintiff sent purchase orders to California and email communications between California and Pennsylvania were merely incidental to the contract, weighing in favor of defendant; (3) there was no written contract to suggest where the parties intended to resolve disputes, with this this factor not weighing “substantially” in favor of plaintiff; and (4) because the product was more like a commodity, weighing in favor of defendant. The court further concluded that the exercise of jurisdiction would not comport with fair play and substantial justice in that the burden upon defendant to defend the case in Pennsylvania outweighed any inconvenience to Plaintiff to litigate in California. Bruce S. Marks and Tom Sullivan served as lead trial counsel.
