Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

lawsuitlitigationdepositionmotionwillmotion to dismiss
lawsuitdefendantjurisdictionattorneydepositionmotionmotion to dismiss

Related Cases

Sampson v. Channell, 110 F.2d 754, 128 A.L.R. 394
View Case »
Turner Entertainment Co. v. Degeto Film GmbH, 25 F.3d 1512
View Case »
Kleinschmidt v. Scribner, 54 Idaho 185, 30 P.2d 362
View Case »
Rosenberg Bros. & Co. v. Curtis Brown Co., 260 U.S. 516, 43 S.Ct. 170, 67 L.Ed. 372
View Case »
Wilson v. Beckett, 95 Ark. App. 300, 236 S.W.3d 527
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Viking Penguin, Inc. v. Janklow, 98 F.R.D. 763, 38 Fed.R.Serv.2d 708, 9 Media L. Rep. 2219

Facts

Viking Penguin, Inc. published a book that included allegations against William J. Janklow, the Governor of South Dakota. Janklow was involved in two lawsuits in South Dakota concerning similar allegations and traveled to New York to attend depositions related to a federal case against Newsweek magazine. While in New York, he was served with the complaint from Viking, which prompted Janklow to move to dismiss the case based on claims of immunity from service of process.

Defendant is a resident of South Dakota and the Governor of that State. There are currently pending two lawsuits in federal district court in South Dakota which concern substantially the same subject matter as the instant action.

Issue

Whether William J. Janklow was immune from service of process while in New York to attend depositions related to a federal case.

Defendant's motion to dismiss granted.

Rule

Under both New York and federal law, a party attending judicial proceedings is immune from service of process during that attendance.

Thus, though defendant emphasizes his role as attorney during the Newsweek depositions, attendance at the proceedings in this capacity is irrelevant under New York law.

Analysis

The court analyzed Janklow's status as a party in the ongoing litigation and concluded that his presence in New York was solely for the purpose of attending depositions, which conferred immunity from service of process. The court emphasized that recognizing this immunity would not obstruct judicial administration and would promote the efficient administration of justice by allowing parties to attend depositions without fear of being served.

We conclude that under either state or federal law, Mr. Janklow's status as a party rendered him immune from service, under the circumstances of this case, while in New York solely to attend a deposition in a proceeding pending in the federal district court in South Dakota.

Conclusion

The court granted Janklow's motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that he was immune from service of process while attending the depositions in New York.

For the foregoing reasons, defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and inadequate service of process is granted and the complaint is dismissed.

Who won?

William J. Janklow prevailed in the case because the court found that he was immune from service of process while attending depositions related to a federal case.

Defendant now moves to dismiss contending that service was faulty in that he was cloaked with immunity from service of process during the time of his attendance at the Newsweek deposition.

You must be