C. EUGENE COOK AND HARRIET J. COOK, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS HUSBAND AND WIFE, APPELLANTS,
v.
NOEL P. FOX ET AL., APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The court held that the Arizona district court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendants because the events giving rise to the complaint did not occur in Arizona, nor did the defendants have sufficient contacts with Arizona.
Plaintiffs sued a federal judge and his wife in Arizona for damages, alleging adverse rulings in Michigan federal securities litigation. The Arizona d…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse 28 U.S.C. § 1406(A) cases and more on FLexlaw
PER CURIAM:
In 1973, C. Eugene Cook was named a defendant in federal securities litigation in the Western District of Michigan. After moving to Arizona in 1974, Cook became displeased with certain orders filed in the Michigan litigation which prevented the removal of contested assets from the jurisdiction of the court. Cook and his wife thereupon sued United States District Judge Noel P. Fox and his wife for damages, filing the action in the United States District Court for the District of Arizona. The district court in Arizona dismissed the action for want of personal jurisdiction over the named defendants, and Cook appeals. We affirm.
Personal jurisdiction in a federal court may be obtained pursuant to Fed.R. Civ.P. 4(d)(7) by reference to the jurisdictional law of the state in which the federal court sits. The relevant part of Arizona’s “long arm” statute provides:
“When the defendant * * * is a person * * * which has caused an event to occur in this state out of which the claim which is the subject of the complaint arose, service may be made * * * and when so made shall be of the same effect as personal service within the state.” Ariz.R.Civ.Proc. 4(e)(2).
The Foxes cannot be said to have “caused” any event giving rise to the Cooks’ complaint within the state of Arizona.
Furthermore, the court orders entered in a federal court sitting in Michigan, preventing the transfer of property within the jurisdiction of that court, do not sufficiently affect persons or property in Arizona to create even the minimal contacts necessary to satisfy due process. See Aanestad v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 521 F. 2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1974). Because the court sitting in Arizona had no personal jurisdiction of the named defendants, it is not necessary to discuss other alleged defects in the plaintiffs’ case.
The district judge did not abuse his discretion under 28 U.S.C. § 1.406(a) in dismissing the action rather than transferring it to the district court for Michigan.
Affirmed.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By
-
Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F.2d 406 (9th Cir. 1977)
-
Naartex Consulting Corp. v. Watt, 722 F.2d 779 (D.C. Cir. 1983)
-
Cent. Valley Typographical Union v. McCLATCHY Newspapers, 762 F.2d 741 (9th Cir. 1985)
Previewing 3 of 4 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Aanestad v. Beech Aircraft Corp., 521 F.2d 1298 (9th Cir. 1974)