holding “once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving . . . that jurisdiction is proper.”
How later courts described this case
- holding “once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving . . . that jurisdiction is proper.”
- holding a plaintiff may rely on “affidavits or other competent evidence [to demonstrate] that jurisdiction is proper”
- finding that a successor to a signatory could compel arbitration
- “In deciding a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, we take the allegations of the complaint as true. But once a defendant has raised a jurisdictional defense, a plaintiff bears the burden of proving by affidavits or other competent evidence that jurisdiction is proper.” (cleaned up)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
SUR PETITION FOR REHEARING BEFORE ORIGINAL PANEL ORDER AMENDING SLIP OPINION
July 24, 1996
The petition for rehearing filed by the appellees, H.J. Heinz Co., Heinz Italia S.p.A., Heinz Dolciaria S.p.A., Sperlari, s.r.l. and Hershey Foods Corporation, in the above captioned matter having been submitted to the judges who participated in the decision of this court and the panel having determined to grant the petition but only to the extent of amending the panel opinion. [Editor’s Note: Amendments incorporated for purposes of publication.]