Opinion ID: 779795
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Waiver and Transfer

Text: 46 Mattel asks us to determine whether captainbarbie.com and mattle.com waived objections to in rem jurisdiction in the Southern District by failing to raise that defense in their answers. Mattel also seeks a determination of whether the district court abused its discretion in failing to order transfer of the various in rem actions to the proper district courts. These issues, however, were neither presented to nor expressly ruled on by the district court. [I]t is a well-established general rule that an appellate court will not consider an issue raised for the first time on appeal. Greene v. United States, 13 F.3d 577, 586 (2d Cir.1994); see also Gurary v. Winehouse, 190 F.3d 37, 44 (2d Cir.1999) (Having failed to make the present argument to the district court, plaintiff will not be heard to advance it here.). Mattel did not raise issues of waiver or transfer at the preliminary conference below, and it arguably abandoned these issues by choosing to devote its April 13, 2000 brief to matters plainly unrelated to the substantive dispute over in rem jurisdiction. Although we may exercise our discretion to consider a newly-raised issue when, for example, we think it necessary to remedy an obvious injustice, Greene, 13 F.3d at 586, we see no injustice in refusing to consider issues that Mattel strategically sidestepped below. 47 Were we to address the waiver and transfer issues on the merits, however, we would still reject Mattel's arguments as a matter of law. Assuming, without deciding, that objections to in rem jurisdiction under the ACPA can be waived through failure to raise that defense by motion under [Rule 12 or] in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course, 15 Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(1), we would conclude that captainbarbie.com and mattle.com did not waive objections to in rem jurisdiction. 48 This Court has observed that, to preserve the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, a defendant need only state the defense in its first responsive filing and need not articulate the defense with any rigorous degree of specificity. Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Aerea Boliviana, 162 F.3d 724, 730 (2d Cir.1998). Captainbarbie.com substantially satisfied this standard when it asserted its challenge to in rem jurisdiction explicitly and vigorously at the preliminary conference on March 30, 2001, almost two weeks before the date (April 10) that Mattel and captainbarbie.com had agreed on as the deadline for answering. Moreover, immediately after the court announced April 13 as the date for submission of Mattel's brief addressing the issue of in rem jurisdiction, counsel for captainbarbie.com offered to address that issue on April 13 in a motion to dismiss in lieu of an answer or would the court prefer that we answer [by April 10, as agreed] and submit on the 13th on the issue of jurisdiction? The court responded by discouraging captainbarbie.com from addressing the jurisdictional issue until plaintiff and [the court] take a first cut [in Mattel's brief-in-chief to be submitted on April 13]. The court also assured captainbarbie.com that its right to submit something to me thereafter would be preserv[ed]. 49 Furthermore, unlike Mattel, which chose to discuss subject matter jurisdiction in its April 13, 2000 brief in disregard of the issue of in rem jurisdiction that clearly was of concern to the court, captainbarbie.com followed the court's instructions by discussing in rem jurisdiction in its April 17 response brief — an act that Mattel would now have us construe as a waiver. Neither fairness nor common sense would permit such a result in these circumstances. Cf. Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58, 60-61 (2d Cir.1999) (observing that in determining whether waiver or forfeiture of objections to personal jurisdiction has occurred, we consider all of the relevant circumstances). 50 Unlike captainbarbie.com, mattle.com answered Mattel's complaint prior to the preliminary conference. Paragraph 1 of Mattel's complaint stated simply that Mattel was bringing this in rem action under the ACPA, while Paragraphs 2 and 3 explicitly set forth statutory bases for subject matter jurisdiction and venue, respectively. In response to these paragraphs, and to Paragraph 4, which described Mattel's business locations, mattle.com's answer stated: Denies knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations of paragraphs 1 through 4 of this complaint, except admits that Mattel purports to assert claims for relief arising under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(d) and respectfully refers questions of law regarding jurisdiction and venue to this Court. 51 Although the nature of any objections it may have had is unclear, mattle.com's answer clearly fell short of admitting Mattel's allegations regarding jurisdiction and venue, and specifically referred the issue of in rem jurisdiction to the district court. Moreover, Mattel's complaint did not set forth a factual basis for the exercise of in rem jurisdiction, and thus there was no specific factual allegation to which mattle.com could have replied. Under more typical circumstances, a court might be concerned that mattle.com failed properly to preserve the jurisdictional defense by including insufficient specificity in its answer. Under the present circumstances, however, which include uncertainty over whether objections to in rem jurisdiction under the ACPA are subject to waiver under Rule 12(h), we would conclude that mattle.com did not waive this defense. 52 Similarly, the district court did not err or abuse its discretion in failing to order transfer of the in rem action. Transfer of a case for the convenience of the parties or to cure defects of venue or jurisdiction may be ordered by the court if such transfer is in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a), 1406(a), 1631. Here, transfer would not be in the interest of justice. Mattel had notice and opportunity, both before and after the district court entered its first order on May 2, 2001, to make arguments opposing dismissal for lack of in rem jurisdiction. That Mattel chose a different strategy is now past cure.