Case ID: f-supp_616/html/1417-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "CAHILL, District Judge.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

James MOONEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Charles BRYMER, et al., Defendants-Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Michael FRIERDICH, Third-Party Defendant.
    No. 84-1272 C (4).
    United States District Court, E.D. Missouri.
    Aug. 29, 1985.
    Theodore D. Dearing, Dearing & Hartzog, Clayton, Mo., for plaintiffs.
    Francis L. Ruppert, Ruppert and Benjamin, Clayton, Mo., for defendant.
   MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

CAHILL, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on third-party defendant Michael Frierdich’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, and on third-party plaintiff’s request for an oral hearing.

This Court in a memorandum and order dated December 11, 1984, dismissed defendant Frierdich (now third-party defendant Frierdich) from this lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction. To date, there has been nothing added to the record that would indicate that third-party defendant Frierdich engaged in any activities within the state of Missouri so as to meet the minimum contacts requirement as set out in Worldwide Volkswagen v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297, 100 S.Ct. 559, 567, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1976), and Scullin Steel v. National Ry. Utilization Corp., 676 F.2d 309, 311 (8th Cir.1982). Thus, the Court still lacks personal jurisdiction over third-party defendant Frierdich, and therefore, his motion to dismiss the third-party complaint will be granted. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that third-party defendant Frierdich’s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that third-party plaintiffs request for oral argument is DENIED.