Court Opinion

ID: 8871973
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-26 18:32:03.290192+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:06:12.486416
License: Public Domain

LUMBARD, Chief Judge
(concurring) :
Although I would affirm the order of Judge Bartels which dismissed the third-party claim for lack of personal jurisdiction, I join in Judge Waterman’s conclusion that the ease be remanded for the taking of further evidence as that appears to me to be the only way to resolve the matter before us in view of our divergent views. I am in agreement with the principles of law set forth in Judge Waterman’s opinion but I feel that their application to these facts should result in a finding that jurisdiction over Ham-mons does not exist. Therefore, I think I should add that it seems unlikely from what is already before us that any additional evidence adduced would require the district court to hold that it had jurisdiction.