Alford

Alford v. Addressograph-Multigraph Corp.

Good Law
3 F.R.D. 295·60 U.S.P.Q. (BNA) 517·1944 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1387
United States District Court, Southern District of CaliforniaJanuary 14, 1944Civ. No. 3182California802 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Connor, J.

This is a motion to quash the summons and dismiss the complaint upon the grounds, (a) that the venue in this action for alleged patent infringement is improper and does not comply with the requirements of the provisions of section 48 of the Judicial Code, 28 U.S.C.A. § 109 , and (b) that the complaint should be dismissed for the further reason that this court is without statutory jurisdiction in this action under the venue clause of the complaint.

The plaintiff contends that the general appearance on the part of the defendant has waived his right to a favorable decision on the motion.

The defendant, on or about October 15, 1943, filed the following appearance: “Appearance is hereby entered by LYON & LYON, Leonard S. Lyon, Lewis E. Lyon, and George H. Wallace and Charles B. Cannon of the firm of WALLACE & CANNON, as attorneys for the defendant, Addressograph-Multigraph Corporation.”

Again a stipulation was entered into between plaintiff and defendant on October 18, 1943, extending the plaintiff’s time to “answer or otherwise plead to the complaint” to November 15, 1943; and a further extension was given by stipulation in the same language, extending the time to December 1,…

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.