Holden
Holden v. Commonwealth of Australia
Opinion
Opinion
Wollenberg, J.
ORDER DISMISSING PARTIES
This is an action to recover damages for injuries allegedly suffered as a result of a collision between the car in which plaintiff was riding and a car owned by the United States.
The Commonwealth of Australia moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction over the person. F.R.Civ.P. Rule 12(b)(2). The record indicates that process was served on the Consul General for the Commonwealth of Australia in San Francisco. It is settled that, with at least one exception, Petrol Shipping Corp v. Kingdom of Greece, 360 F.2d 103 (2d Cir. 1966), a consul is not an agent of the country he represents for the purpose of receiving service of process. Purdy Co. v. Argentina, 333 F.2d 95 (7th Cir. 1964). Accordingly, the complaint will be dismissed as to the Commonwealth of Australia.
The United States moves to dismiss all defendants except the United States on the ground that the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2671 et seq., prohibits the United' States from being joined with any other defendants. Authority on this proposition is scarce, and what exists is neither recent nor consistent. Although it was held in Uarte v. United States, 7 F.R.D. 705 (S.D.Cal.1948), that…