§Why CasetextPricing

Sz Dji Technology Co., Ltd. et al v. Autel Robotics USA Llc et al

REPLY BRIEF re MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Person and for Insufficient Service of Process

16 Cited authorities

  1. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson

    444 U.S. 286 (1980)   Cited 11,087 times   33 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an Oklahoma court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over a car retailer when the retailer's only connection to Oklahoma was the fact that a car sold in New York became involved in an accident in Oklahoma

  2. Asahi Metal Indus. Co. Ltd. v. Superior Court

    480 U.S. 102 (1987)   Cited 4,980 times   40 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, in suit by Taiwanese manufacturer for indemnification against Japanese manufacturer, the assertion by California court of personal jurisdiction over Japanese manufacturer was unreasonable

  3. MSL at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Ass'n

    107 F.3d 1026 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 304 times
    Holding Noerr gave immunity for any damages stemming from state adoption of requirements for bar admission to petitioners who lobbied for their adoption

  4. Darden v. DaimlerChrysler

    191 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2002)   Cited 182 times
    Holding that a parent corporation will not be held liable for the torts of its subsidiary unless the court has reason to pierce the corporate veil or to find that the tortious conduct was pursuant to an agency relationship

  5. Applied Biosystems, Inc. v. Cruachem, Ltd.

    772 F. Supp. 1458 (D. Del. 1991)   Cited 133 times
    Holding that subsection (c) of the long-arm statute “requires that some act must have actually occurred in Delaware”

  6. C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Guidant Corp.

    997 F. Supp. 556 (D. Del. 1998)   Cited 95 times
    Finding that a subsidiary company was not an agent for a holding company because the subsidiary was responsible for making its own day-to-day decisions

  7. American Inst. of Cert. Pub. Accts. v. Affinity Card

    8 F. Supp. 2d 372 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)   Cited 71 times
    Finding that, despite one individual serving as an office and director of two corporations and despite those corporations sharing some employees and having a common address and phone number, service on one corporation does not render service on the other one

  8. Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.

    167 F. Supp. 2d 692 (D. Del. 2001)   Cited 46 times
    Requiring a "nexus" between plaintiff's cause of action and defendant's conduct that is the basis for jurisdiction

  9. Pope v. Rice

    04 Civ. 4171 (DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 14, 2005)   Cited 36 times

    04 Civ. 4171 (DLC). March 14, 2005 Joseph D. Pope, Cohen Pope PLLC, New York, New York, for the Plaintiff. Samuel Issacharoff, Susan E. Brune, Theresa Trzaskoma, Brune Richard LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants Joseph F. Rice, Motley, Rice LLC, and Ronald L. Motley. Steven G. Storch, Storch Amini Munves PC, New York, New York, for Defendant Ness Motley PA. Jordan M. Sklar, Babchik Young, LLP, White Plains, New York, for Defendants Alan Kellman and The Jaques Admiralty Law Firm, P.C. OPINION

  10. Amnay v. Del Labs

    117 F. Supp. 2d 283 (E.D.N.Y. 2000)   Cited 42 times
    Holding that Rule 4(h) does not authorize service on corporations by mail

  11. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 363,942 times   963 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 74,308 times   131 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time