|
118 - Case laws - Applicant Vs. Beneficiary
Di Maggio v. Cooperativa Agricola S. Giuseppe a r.l. No. 964682, 1997 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8844 (E.D. Pa. 25 June 1997) Applicant sued beneficiary, seller is bank and exporter for recision of contract, fraud, fraudulent misrepresentation, coercion, and extortion. |
| Parties: Plaintiff/Applicant : Peter Di Maggio and Continental Interiors Exports Defendant/Seller/Beneficiary's Bank : Banca Popolare Dell'Irpina Issuer : CoreStates Bank Transaction: Purchase of 27,000 cases of peeled tomatoes. LC: Commercial credit for US$ 200,000. Silent as to the UCP. Decision: The United States District Court for the Eastern District Pennsylvania, Reed, J., granted defendant Banca Popolare's Dell'Irpina's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. Justification: The court could not exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendant whose only act related to the jurisdiction was the acceptance of a LC issued by a bank in that jurisdiction. History: To pay for the purchase and import of 27,000 cases of peeled tomatoes, the applicant caused a letter of credit to be issued for US$ 200,000 in favor of the seller in Italy. The seller's bank initially rejected a letter of credit issued by another US bank and then accepted the letter of credit at issue in this case. Pursuant to the LC, the seller's bank received disbursements and credited the seller's account. Subsequently, the applicant brought this action alleging that the exporter had failed to file the proper FDA and customs notices. As a result, the applicant alleged that the tomatoes did not reach their intended destination. Briefing: Personal Jurisdiction: Applying Pennsylvania's longarm statute, which allows the court to assert jurisdiction up to the U.S. Constitutional limits if it finds that the defendant established minimum contacts in the forum by "deliberately engaging in significant activities or by creating continuing obligations such that he has ‘purposefully availed himself of the privilege of conducting business there'", the court found that the only evidence of systematic and continuous business being done by the seller's bank in Pennsylvania was the rejection of the first LC, the acceptance of the second LC, and an un-sworn statement from the applicant's counsel that the seller's bank regularly conducted business in the jurisdiction. Finding the LC transactions to be insufficient, and the counsel's claim unsupported, the court ruled that it could not assert general personal jurisdiction over the seller's bank. The court also found that the seller's bank had only been the recipient of the LC involved in this transaction and had not actively sought its issuance within the jurisdiction. Mere acceptance of a LC issued within the jurisdiction, the court held, was not enough to assert specific personal jurisdiction over the seller's bank. Accordingly, the court dismissed the applicant's complaint as related to the seller's bank. |