Date: 11-16-2001

Case Style: Jarrow Formula, Inc. v. International Nutrition Company

Case Number: 01CV478

Judge: Alfred V. Covello

Court: United States District Court for the District of Connecticut

Plaintiff's Attorney: Unknown

Defendant's Attorney: Unknown

Description: This is an action for damages and equitable relief in connection with the marketing and sale of nutritional supplements under certain United States patents. It is brought pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2 1 (the Sherman Antitrust Act), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 35-24 to -46 2 (the Connecticut Antitrust Act), Conn. Gen. Stat. §§ 42-110a to -110q 3 (the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act or CUTPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)4 (the Lanham Act), Conn. Gen. Stat. § 52-568 5 (the Connecticut vexatious litigation statute), and common law tenents concerning tortious interference with business relations.

The defendants, Egbert Schwitters and Jack Masquelier, have filed the within motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2) arguing that the court lacks personal jurisdiction over them. In addition, all the defendants have filed the within motion to dismiss pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing that the complaint fails to state a cause of action.

The issues presented are: 1) whether the court can exercise personal jurisdiction over Schwitters and Masquelier; 2) whether the Noerr-Pennington 6 immunity doctrine applies to Jarrow’s causes of action; 3) whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts to state causes of action under CUTPA, the Lanham Act, the Connecticut vexatious litigation statute, and under common law tenents concerning tortious interference with business relations; and 4) whether the complaint alleges sufficient facts in order to hold the defendant, Norman H. Zivin, liable for each of the asserted causes of action.

* * *

Click the case caption above for the full text of the Court's opinion.

Outcome: For the reasons herein set forth, the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction is DENIED as to Masquelier and GRANTED as to Schwitters. The motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action is DENIED.

Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown

Defendant's Experts: Unknown

Comments: Reported by Kent Morlan