Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

JENNINGS v. COUTSCOUDIS

September 27, 1996

EDNA M. JENNINGS, Plaintiff,
v.
SANDRA E. COUTSCOUDIS, et al., Defendants.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: RICHEY

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

 INTRODUCTION

 Before the Court in the above-entitled action are the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Service of Process and Lack of Jurisdiction Over the Defendants, the Plaintiff's Opposition thereto, and the Plaintiff's Motion to Remove the case to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. This action arises from an automobile accident involving the parties occurring in Spotsylvania County, Virginia on August 28, 1993. Upon consideration of the parties' pleadings, the law applicable thereto, the entire record herein, and for the reasons set forth below, the Court shall grant the defendant's Motion to Dismiss and deny the plaintiff's Motion to Transfer on the ground that the Court does not have personal jurisdiction over the defendants.

 BACKGROUND

 The plaintiff alleges in her Complaint that on August 28, 1993 her automobile collided with an automobile driven by defendant Sandra E. Coutscoudis and owned by defendant Constantinos Coutscoudis. The plaintiff claims that defendant Sandra Coutscoudis was driving in a reckless and careless manner and, as a result of such conduct, the plaintiff sustained personal injuries, including, but not limited to, being diagnosed with carpel tunnel syndrome. The plaintiff is a resident of the District of Columbia and the defendants reside in Virginia. The plaintiff filed suit in this Court on August 26, 1996, seeking $ 500,000 in damages.

 DISCUSSION

 I. THE COURT SHALL DISMISS THE CASE BECAUSE IT DOES NOT HAVE PERSONAL JURISDICTION OVER THE DEFENDANTS.

 A. Service of Summons Is Effective In Establishing Personal Jurisdiction Over The Defendants If They Could Be Subjected to the Jurisdiction of a Court of General Jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.

 The plaintiff bases subject matter jurisdiction in this case on diversity of citizenship and has served or will attempt to serve the summons upon the defendants in the next several weeks pursuant to Rule 4(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Service of a summons is effective to establish personal jurisdiction over a defendant:

 
(A) who could be subjected to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state in which the district court is located, or
 
(B) who is a party joined under Rule 14 or Rule 19 and is served at a place within a judicial district of the United States and not more than 100 miles from the place from which the summons issued, or
 
(C) who is subject to the federal interpleader jurisdiction under 28 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.