Opinion ID: 4015399
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Remaining Jurisdictional Argument

Text: Finally, here, appellants argue that the district court lacked personal jurisdiction over them because they were not parties to the original judgment and have insufficient contacts with the forum. But once personal jurisdiction is established over the original party, it is retained over Rule 25(c) successors in interest, Maysonet-Robles, 323 F.3d at 49, as long as the substituted party had an opportunity to challenge its joinder or substitution. Explosives Corp. of Am., 817 F.2d at 906 (citing Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 757 F.2d at 1262–63 and 7C C. Wright, A. Miller & M. Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 1958 at 559–60 (2d ed. 1986)). Were this not so, the owners of the property could merely transfer legal ownership of the assets from one shell corporation to another in a different jurisdiction, putting a party whose initial suit satisfied the jurisdictional requirements to the immense burden of chasing the involved assets from courtroom to courtroom. Minn. Mining & Mfg. Co., 757 F.2d at 1263. As we explained, appellants here had notice that Rodríguez sought to hold them liable for the judgment entered against Coquico and an opportunity to challenge their joinder before the district court. Accordingly, personal jurisdiction was properly acquired over appellants as Rule 25(c) successors in interest. - 31 -