Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904/USCOURTS-azd-2_04-cv-01904-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Tort/Non-Motor Vehicle

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

MICHAEL C. BAUERLEIN, surviving

natural father of BROOKE LYNNE

BAUERLEIN, deceased minor,

individually and on behalf of all wrongful

death beneficiaries, including SHANNON

BAUERLEIN, surviving mother of

BROOKE LYNNE BAUERLEIN,

deceased minor; and PATRICIA JOELEE

BAUERLEIN, through MICHEAL C.

BAUERLEIN, her natural parent and

next friend,

Plaintiffs,

v.

EQUITY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES

MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, an

Illinois Corporation d/b/a LA

MARIPOSA; LOTUS & WINDOWARE,

INC., a California Corporation; JUMBO

SURPLUS CORPORATION, a

Taiwanese Corporation; JOHN and JANE

DOES I-X; and BLACK and WHITE

CORPORATIONS/ PARTNERSHIPS IX,

Defendants.

NO. CV04-1904-PHX-SMM

ORDER

Pending before the Court is Defendant/Cross-Defendant/Cross-Claimant Jumbo

Surplus Corporation's (Jumbo") Motion for Leave to Amend its Affirmative Defenses

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 195 Filed 04/03/07 Page 1 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1

 A copy of the letter and proof of receipt is included in the record.

-2-

(Doc. 190). Jumbo seeks to amend its Amended Answer to the Second Amended

Complaint and Affirmative Defenses to add the following affirmative defenses:

25. As an affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that this Court does not

have personal jurisdiction over Jumbo.

29. As an affirmative defense, Defendant alleges that it is not liable to the

Plaintiffs in this matter as Jumbo's manner of work with regard to the

subject product was done strictly in compliance with specifications

provided by other entities and by this following of specifications,

Jumbo is not liable to Plaintiffs.

30. As an affirmative defense, Defendant alleges, pursuant to A.R.S. § 12-

551 and all applicable or related statutes of repose and limitation, that

Plaintiffs' action is barred by the statute of limitations.

Proposed Second Amended Answer (Doc. 190-2).

On July 7, 2005, Plaintiff was granted leave to file its Second Amended

Complaint in this action wherein Plaintiff named Jumbo as a Defendant, among other

Defendants in the wrongful death claim of Brooke Bauerlein. According to the record,

Plaintiff first attempted service on Jumbo pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.4, however Jumbo did

not voluntarily appear.1

 Thereafter, on December 8, 2006, after obtaining international

service on Jumbo, Jumbo filed its Answer and affirmative defenses. (Doc. 160). 

Jumbo's Answer did not raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction. Nor did

Jumbo raise the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction at that time by filing a motion

pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P.12. (Doc. 160). On December 20, Jumbo filed an Amended

Answer without Motion for Leave. Once again, Jumbo did not raise the defense of lack

of personal jurisdiction. (Doc. 165). On March 27, more than three months subsequent

to filing its Amended Answer, Jumbo filed the pending motion seeking leave to amend

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 195 Filed 04/03/07 Page 2 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

 Furthermore, the Court finds that Jumbo waived the defense of lack of personal

jurisdiction by making an appearance in the case. Defendants can waive the defect of

lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing generally without first challenging the defect

in a preliminary motion. Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir.

1982)(citing Amen v. Dearborn, 532 F.2d 554, 558, n.7 (6th Cir. 1976))(Jurisdiction

attaches if a defendant makes a voluntary general appearance, as by filing an answer

through an attorney). 

-3-

its Answer. An objection to personal jurisdiction must be raised as an affirmative

defense in the Answer or by motion prior to the filing of the Answer.

Fed.R.Civ.P.12(b). Consequently, permitting Jumbo to amend its Answer to add the

affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction when Jumbo failed to raise the

defense in a pre-Answer motion or its first responsive pleading, would contravene the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and effectively render Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h) as it relates

to personal jurisdiction meaningless.2

Therefore, Jumbo's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc. 190) as it pertains to the

affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction (paragraph 25) is DENIED.

As to Jumbo's request to add affirmative defenses paragraphs 29 and 30, the Court

finds no objection with this request. Rule 15(a) provides that "leave will be freely given

when justice requires". In its opposition, Plaintiff raised no objection with regard to

Jumbo's proposed affirmative defenses paragraphs 29 and 30. Therefore, the Court finds

that justice requires the Court to GRANT Jumbo's Motion for Leave to Amend (Doc.

190) as it pertains to paragraphs 29 and 30.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Jumbo's Motion for Leave to Amend its

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 195 Filed 04/03/07 Page 3 of 4
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

-4-

Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 190) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED GRANTING Jumbo's Motion for Leave to

Amend its Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 190) as to paragraphs 29 and 30 of Jumbo's

proposed Second Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc.

190-2).

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED DENYING Jumbo's Motion for Leave to Amend

its Affirmative Defenses (Doc. 190) as to paragraph 25 of Jumbo's proposed Second

Amended Answer to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 190-2).

DATED this 2nd day of April, 2007.

Case 2:04-cv-01904-SMM Document 195 Filed 04/03/07 Page 4 of 4