Diamond Chemical Co. v. Atofina Chemicals, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• allowing discovery because plaintiffs pointed to specific activity of companies that would show managerial control, flow of funds, and knowledge of and participation in conspiracy
• “[A]llowing Plaintiff to pursue its jurisdictional discovery . . . will also suffice to answer the question of whether or not it failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.”
• “Ordinarily, a defendant corporation’s contacts with a forum may not be attributed to . . . affiliated corporations.”
• plaintiff is entitled to jurisdictional discovery “even though [p]laintiff has not made out a prima facie case of jurisdiction as required by other jurisdictions[.]”
• “[wjhere affiliated parties are ‘alter egos’ of a corporation over which the Court has personal jurisdiction ... the corporation’s contacts may be attributed to the affiliated party for jurisdictional purposes.”
• “The Circuit’s standard for permitting jurisdictional discovery is quite liberal”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).