Bowser

Bowser v. Daro

Good Law
1 F.R.D. 568·1941 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1986
United States District Court, Northern District of CaliforniaJanuary 23, 1941No. 21621California454 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Welsh, J.

The defendant, Jack E. Daro, resident of the Southern District of California, is joined in this action with Joe Malcewicz, whose residence within this Northern District is not disputed. The cause of action stated against Jack E. Daro is distinct from that stated against Joe Malcewicz and is set forth in a separate count of the complaint. It does not appear from the complaint whether the several claims against these two defendants arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and if any question of law or fact common to all of them will arise in the action. Consequently, it cannot be determined from the complaint whether or not there has been a misjoinder of parties in violation of Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S. C.A. following section 723c.

The defendant, Jack E. Daro, was served with process in the Southern District of California and now moves the court for an order quashing service and return of service upon him on the ground that he is beyond the jurisdiction of this court.

In support of the venue of this court and the sufficiency of the service of its process on the defendant in this state but in a different district thereof, plaintiff relies upon…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.