United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania.

Summary

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Simpson v. Lifespring, Inc. 572 F.Supp… (1983)

American Digital Systems, Inc., supra, determined under similar circumstances, to hold that these factors are sufficient to bring Hanley within the jurisdiction of this court would force him to defend himself in every forum where Lifespring itself conducts its operations. To so hold distorts the due process limits of personal jurisdiction. As the PCS court stated "officers of corporations operating in several states would be faced with a Hobson's choice. They must either disassociate themselves from the corporation or defend the propriety of their conduct in a distant forum."
Source: Wikisource

United States District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania. Simpson v. Lifespring, Inc. 572 F.Supp… (1983)

Jurisdiction is based on diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (a) (1) . Plaintiff, Florence Simpson, is an individual residing in New Jersey. Defendant, Lifespring, Inc. ("Lifespring") is a California corporation with its principal place of business in California. Defendant John P. Hanley ("Hanley") is a citizen and resident of the State of California. He is President and principal shareholder of Lifespring.
Plaintiff alleges that she participated in a group training program conducted by Lifespring in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania during April 1981.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature