Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc.

6 Citing briefs

  1. Fenstemaker et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

    BRIEF in Opposition

    Filed April 3, 2017

    When an out-of-state defendant consents to the jurisdiction of a state’s courts, those courts may exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant and do not need to resort to the “minimum contacts” analysis. See Sondergard v. Miles, 985 F.2d 1389, 1396 (8th Cir. 1993); Knowlton, 900 F.2d at 1200. The Eighth Case 3:16-cv-07418-FLW-LHG Document 54 Filed 04/03/17 Page 17 of 27 PageID: 614 13 Circuit has repeatedly held that “the appointment of an agent for service of process constitute[s] consent to jurisdiction, and the due process clause [i]s thus satisfied.” Sondergard, 985 F.2d at 1396; see Ocepek v. Corporate Transport, Inc., 950 F.2d 556, 557-558 (8th Cir. 1991); Knowlton, 900 F.2d 1199-1200.

  2. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

    RESPONSE

    Filed May 24, 2012

    As explained by the Eighth Circuit: A defendant may voluntarily consent or submit to the jurisdiction of a court which otherwise would not have jurisdiction over it. [citation omitted] One of the most solidly established ways of giving such consent is to designate an agent for service of process within the State. Knowlton, 900 F.2d at 1199. Perfect 10 respectfully requests that the Court adopt the reasoning espoused by the Eighth Circuit.

  3. Cerrone-Kennedy et al v. Johnson & Johnson et al

    MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction

    Filed August 26, 2016

    Holliger, 986 S.W.2d at 168. In St. Louis City Circuit Orders denying Imerys’ motions to dismiss, 4 the Circuit Court relied heavily upon Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990). However, the Minnesota statute at issue in that case was broadly worded and contained no words of limitation.

  4. Gucci America, Inc. et al v. Li et al

    MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 135 MOTION to Compel Bank of China to produce all documents requested in the July 16, 2010 and February 23, 2011 Subpoenas and clarifying that "Defendants" covers Defendants newly identified in Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint <i. Document

    Filed December 1, 2014

    Civ. 4661, 2013 WL 5308028, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 19, 2013) (corporation); R. Siskind & Co., Inc. v. Ashworth, Inc., 95 Civ. 7707, 1996 WL 167722, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Apr. 10, 1996) (same). 15 See Ocepek v. Corp. Transp., Inc., 950 F.2d 556, 557 (8th Cir. 1991); Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196, 1199 (8th Cir. 1990); R.R. Donnelley & Sons Co. v. Jet Messenger Serv., Inc., No. 03 C 7823, 2004 WL 1375402, at *4 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2004); cf. Pa. Fire Ins. Co. v. Gold Issue Mining & Milling Co., 243 U.S. 93, 94-95 (1917). Case 1:10-cv-04974-RJS Document 136 Filed 12/01/14 Page 28 of 31 23 First, the Beijing Judgment reinforces this Court’s finding that “the documents requested in the Subpoena[s] are important to the instant litigation.”

  5. Perfect 10, Inc. v. Yandex N.V.

    REPLY

    Filed May 31, 2012

    Perfect 10 also argues that Yandex N.V. has consented to the general jurisdiction of this Court by designating a domestic agent for service of process in connection with its regulatory filings with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission. Perfect 10 urges this Court to follow Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc. 900 F.2d 1196 (8th Cir. 1990), and find that the designation of an agent for service of process is a consent to general personal jurisdiction. What Perfect 10 fails to mention is that this Eighth Circuit case was interpreting and applying Minnesota state law when it ruled that designation of an agent for service of process constitutes consent to general personal jurisdiction.

  6. Sams v. Windstream Communications, Inc. et al

    MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings with Brief In Support

    Filed April 18, 2011

    Complaint ¶¶ 8, 10, 12. See Knowlton v. Allied Van Lines, Inc., 900 F.2d 1196, 1199 (8th Cir. 1990) (“One of the most solidly established ways of giving such consent [to personal jurisdiction] is to designate an agent for service of process within the State