# Bessel v. Clyde

> District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · February 10, 1958 · 22 F.R.D. 15

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8737404

## Case

- **Full name:** David BESSEL v. C. J. CLYDE, George D. Simms and Thomas K. Dunstan, in their capacity as panel members of the Eastern Industrial Personnel Security Board
- **Court:** District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** February 10, 1958
- **Citations:** 22 F.R.D. 15; 1958 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4392
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Kirkpatrick
- **Judges:** Kirkpatrick
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8737404

## Opinion text

KIRKPATRICK, Chief Judge.
The plaintiff brings suit against the panel members of the Eastern Industrial Personnel Security Board, alleging that his application to reinstate his security clearance was refused by the Board after a hearing in which he was not accorded administrative due process. The Board is designated as the New York Board and has its headquarters there. It holds hearings, in accordance with the directives governing it, wherever convenient. In this case it held one of two hearings in Philadelphia, the other in Camden.
The United States Attorney was served with process in this District and a copy of the summons and complaint was served upon two of the Board members in the Southern District of New York. The third member of the Board has not been served.
I regret that I find myself unable to agree with the conclusion reached by Judge Welsh of this court in Cohen v. Leone, D.C., 18 F.R.D. 494 . It seems to me that the plain language of Rule 4(f), Fed.Rules Civ.Proc. 28 U.S.C., does not *16 permit of any implied exception and that the Rule sets definite limits beyond which the process may not.be served, no matter where the cause of action arose. This is not to say, however, that I feel that in the present case the cause of action pleaded arose in this District.
The motion to dismiss is granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/8737404. Public record. Not legal advice.