Court Opinion

ID: 2964079
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:20:05.962833+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:42:49.995926
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          April 18, 1996
                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________

        No. 95-2127

                                 PETER PAUL MITRANO,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                              JERRY'S FORD SALES, INC.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                 [Hon. Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr., U.S. District Judge]
                                                 ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                 Selya, Cyr and Lynch,
                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________

                                 ____________________

            Peter Paul Mitrano on brief pro se.
            __________________
            Howard  B.  Myers and  Brown, Olson  & Wilson,  P.C. on  brief for
            _________________      _____________________________
        appellee.

                                 ____________________

                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.   We have  carefully reviewed the  record in
                 __________

            this  case, including the briefs  of the parties.   We affirm

            the dismissal of plaintiff/appellant's complaint for  lack of

            personal jurisdiction.

                 Plaintiff/appellant    has    failed   to    show   that

            defendant/appellee  "purposefully  availed   itself  of   the

            privilege  of conducting  activities within  [New Hampshire].

            Hanson  v.  Denckla, 357  U.S. 235,  253  (1958).   Where all
            ______      _______

            negotiations relevant to the  purchase of the automobile took

            place entirely out of state, see United Electrical Workers v.
                                         ___ _________________________

            163  Pleasant  Street Corp.,  960 F.2d  1080, 1090  (1st Cir.
            ___________________________

            1992)   (location  of   negotiations  vitally   important  to

            jurisdictional inquiry based on  contract), the mere  mailing

            of papers  to New  Hampshire  is an  insufficient contact  to

            support the exercise of jurisdiction over defendant/appellee.

                 Appellant  contends,  however,  that  defendant/appellee

            waived this  defense because, although it  raised the defense

            of  lack of personal jurisdiction  in its answer,  it did not

            include  that defense  in its  subsequent motion  to dismiss.

            Appellant's  position is  not entirely  without  support. See
                                                                      ___

            Arkwright Mutual  Insurance Co. v. Scottsdale  Insurance Co.,
            _______________________________    _________________________

            874 F. Supp.  601, 603  (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (defense  of lack  of

            personal jurisdiction waived by failure to raise it in  first

            Rule 12 motion, even though defendant included it in answer);

            Committee  v. Reimer Co., L.P.A., 150  F.R.D. 495, 498 (D.Vt.
            _________     __________________

            1993)  (same).  However, we  think that a  careful reading of

                                         -2-

            the relevant language and purpose of  Rule 12 indicates that,

            in this case, the defense was preserved.

                 "The  purpose of  Rule  12 is  to eliminate  unnecessary

            delays in the  early pleading stages  of a suit  so that  all

            available Rule  12 defenses are advanced before consideration

            of the merits."   Manchester Knitted Fashions v. Amalgamated,
                              ___________________________    ___________

            967 F.2d 688, 691 (1st Cir. 1992) (citing cases).  To  effect

            this purpose, Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1)  provides that certain

            defenses,  including the lack  of personal  jurisdiction, are

            waived, in one of  two circumstances: "(A) if omitted  from a

            motion in the circumstances described in [Rule 12(g)], or (B)

            if it is neither made by motion under this  rule nor included

            in a responsive  pleading . . ."   Which  of the two parts of

            this rule  applies depends on  the form of  defendant's first

            defensive move.   If defendant's  first defensive  move is  a

            preanswer motion, section A  requires that the motion contain

            all  applicable  defenses.    That  12(h)(1)(A)  applies   to

            preanswer  motions  is  made   clear  by  the  1966  Advisory
            _________

            Committee's  notes  to  Rule  12(h)(1)  (Rule  provides  that

            "certain specified defenses, which  were available to a party

            when he made  a preanswer  motion but which  he omitted  from
                            _________________

            that  motion, are  waived") (emphasis added),  as well  as by

            part A's reference to Rule 12(g), see 1966 Advisory Committee
                                              ___

            notes  to Rule 12(g) (Rule precludes "a defendant who makes a

            preanswer motion under this rule from making a further motion
            ________________________________

                                         -3-

            presenting any  defense or  objection which was  available to

            him at the time he  made the first motion and which  he could

            have included but did not in fact include therein."); Pilgrim
                                                                  _______

            Badge & Label Corp. v. Barrios, 857 F.2d 1,3 (1st  Cir. 1988)
            __________________     _______

            ("'[s]ubdivision  (g)  contemplates  the  presentation  of an

            omnibus preanswer  motion in  which defendant  advances every
                    _________

            available Rule 12 defense  and objection he may have  that is

            assertable by  motion.") (quoting 5 Wright  & Miller, Federal
                                                                  _______

            Practice  & Procedure:  Civil    1384 at  837 (1969))).   If,
            _____________________

            however,  the   first  defensive  move  of   defendant  is  a

            responsive pleading, 12(h)(1)(B) requires that the defense of

            lack  of personal  jurisdiction be  raised in  that pleading.

            Taken  together,   Rule  12(h)(1)(A)  &  (B)   require  "that

            defendants wishing  to raise [a  defense of lack  of personal

            jurisdiction] must do so in their first defensive move, be it
                          ________________________________________

            a Rule 12  motion or a responsive  pleading."  Glater  v. Eli
                                                           ______     ___

            Lilly & Co.,  712 F.2d  735, 738  (1st Cir.  1983); see  also
            ___________                                         ___  ____

            Roque  v.  United States,  857 F.2d  20,  21 (1st  Cir. 1988)
            _____      _____________

            (Under Rule  12(h)(1), "defense of [personal jurisdiction] is

            waived  if not raised  in the  answer (or  in a  motion filed

            prior to  or contemporaneously with the  answer).") (emphasis
            _____

            in original).  

                 In  the  instant  case,  defendant/appellee  raised  the

            defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in its answer to the

            complaint.    Since   this  was  defendant/appellee's   first

                                         -4-

            defensive move, the waiver provisions of Rule 12(h)(1) do not

            apply.   Nor  did  defendant/appellee waive  that defense  by

            failing  to  raise  lack  of  personal  jurisdiction  in  its

            subsequent postanswer motion to dismiss, see Bronlow v. Aman,
                       __________                    ___ _______    ____

            740 F.2d 1476,  1483 n.1 (10th Cir. 1984) (defense of lack of

            personal jurisdiction  not waived  even though not  raised in

            answer to amended  complaint since it had already been raised

            in   an   initial  motion   to  dismiss),   especially  since

            defendant/appellee  showed no lack  of diligence  in pressing

            this  issue  before  the district  court,  cf.  Rice v.  Nova
                                                       __   ____     ____

            Biomedical  Corp., 38 F.3d 909, 914 (7th Cir. 1994) (although
            _________________

            raised  in  initial pleading,  defense  of  lack of  personal

            jurisdiction  waived when  not pressed  again until  appeal);

            Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533, 539 (8th Cir. 1990) (same).
            _______    ____

                 Affirmed.
                 ________

                                         -5-