Court Opinion

ID: 2964731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:30:16.589746+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:11:55.645828
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

          
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                              _________________________

          No. 96-2173

                       SUNVIEW CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                             FLEXEL INTERNATIONAL, LTD.,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.
                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

                    [Hon. Paul J. Barbadoro, U.S. District Judge]
                                             ___________________

                   [Hon. James R. Muirhead, U.S. Magistrate Judge]
                                            _____________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                              Cyr, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                   ____________________

                              and Boudin, Circuit Judge.
                                          _____________
                              _________________________

               Christopher J. Sorenson, with whom Gary J. Gordon, Katherine
               _______________________            ______________  _________
          A.  Killen Hall,  Fetterly &  Gordon, P.A.,  John L.  Putnam, and
          _______________   ________________________   _______________
          Stebbins, Bradley, Wood & Harvey were on brief, for appellants.
          ________________________________
               Mark  G. DeGiacomo,  with  whom M.  Carolina Avellaneda  and
               __________________              _______________________
          Roche, Carens & DeGiacomo, P.C. were on brief, for appellee.
          _______________________________

                              _________________________

                                    June 27, 1997

                              _________________________

                    SELYA, Circuit  Judge.  In this  appeal, the plaintiffs
                    SELYA, Circuit  Judge.
                           ______________

          make two related arguments.   First, they contend that  they were

          improperly precluded from  undertaking jurisdictional  discovery.

          Second,  they assert that this  initial error was compounded when

          the district  court subsequently dismissed their  action for want

          of jurisdiction over  the corporate person  of defendant-appellee

          Flexel International, Ltd. (Flexel).1   Discerning no  reversible

          error, we affirm.

          I.  BACKGROUND
          I.  BACKGROUND

                    The Sunview Condominium  Complex is located amidst  the

          serene  pastoral beauty of Derry, New Hampshire.  On December 17,

          1993,  that   tranquility  went   up  in  smoke,   literally  and

          figuratively, when a conflagration erupted at the complex.  Those

          flames,  in turn,  ignited the  controversy which  underlies this

          appeal.   Alleging  that radiant  heating panels  manufactured by

          Flexel's  predecessor in interest, Thermaflex International, Ltd.

          (Thermaflex),  had  caused  the  blaze, the  Sunview  Condominium

          Association  and its  management  company, Evergreen  Management,

          Inc.  (collectively, Sunview),  brought  this  product  liability

          class action to recover damages.2
                              
          ____________________

               1The  plaintiffs  originally  sued  both  Flexel and  Aztech
          International,  Ltd. (Aztech).  Aztech  is now in bankruptcy, and
          the  district court  certified  its order  dismissing the  action
          against Flexel as  a final judgment under Fed.  R. Civ. P. 54(b).
          Thus, we treat the appeal as if Flexel were the sole defendant.

               2Sunview alleges that Thermaflex (the actual manufacturer of
          the heating panels) transferred its assets to Flexel in mid-1993.
          For the purpose of resolving the jurisdictional issue,  the lower
          court assumed  arguendo that  Flexel, a Scottish  corporation, is
                         ________
          the  successor in interest to  Thermaflex, an English  firm.  We,

                                          2

                    The  relevant  chronology  is   as  follows.    Sunview

          commenced  its suit  in August  1995.   In February  1996, Flexel

          moved  to dismiss  for  want of  personal jurisdiction.   Without

          having  undertaken any  other discovery,  Sunview sought  to take

          depositions of Flexel officials in Scotland.   When Flexel turned

          a  cold shoulder, Sunview moved to  compel it to cooperate in the

          taking  of the  desired depositions.   Magistrate  Judge Muirhead

          denied  Sunview's motion.   See  Sunview  Condo. Ass'n  v. Aztech
                                      ___  _____________________     ______

          Int'l, Ltd., Civ.  No. 95-418-B, slip  op. at 2-6 (D.N.H.  May 1,
          ___________

          1996).

                    Sunview did not lodge  an objection to the magistrate's

          ruling.  On May 28, 1996, it filed an opposition to the dismissal

          motion.  On September  3, the district court, finding  an absence

          of  minimum contacts, granted the motion to dismiss.  This appeal

          ensued.

          II.  ANALYSIS
          II.  ANALYSIS

                    Although   Sunview's   two   claims   of    error   are

          interconnected,  a separate  set of  legal principles  applies in

          each   instance.     Consequently,  we   treat  the   two  claims

          sequentially.

                       A.  Denial of Jurisdictional Discovery.
                       A.  Denial of Jurisdictional Discovery.
                           __________________________________

                    Sunview  argues  heatedly  that  it  should  have  been

          permitted   to  engage   in  jurisdictional   discovery.     This

          asseveration has  some superficial appeal.  After all, a diligent

          plaintiff who sues an out-of-state corporation  and who makes out
                              
          ____________________

          too, proceed on that assumption.

                                          3

          a colorable case  for the existence  of in personam  jurisdiction
                                                  __ ________

          may  well be entitled to a modicum of jurisdictional discovery if

          the  corporation  interposes  a  jurisdictional  defense.3    See
                                                                        ___

          Whittaker Corp.  v. United  Aircraft Corp.,  482 F.2d 1079,  1086
          _______________     ______________________

          (1st Cir. 1973); Surpitski v. Hughes-Keenan Corp.,  362 F.2d 254,
                           _________    ___________________

          255-56 (1st Cir. 1966) (per curiam).  But that entitlement is not

          absolute; in all  events, it  presupposes that  the plaintiff  is

          reasonably  attentive to the preservation of its rights.  That is

          not the situation here.

                    When   Sunview  could  not  convince  Magistrate  Judge

          Muirhead  to approve the depositions  that it wished  to take, it

          dropped  the matter.  Specifically,  it eschewed the  filing of a

          timely objection to  the magistrate's order denying its motion to

          compel discovery.    This omission  is fatal  to Sunview's  first

          assignment of error.  We explain briefly.

                    Since  the  motion  to   compel  discovery  involved  a

          nondispositive matter, the magistrate's order  was effective when

          made, and it was therefore immediately appealable to the district

          court.  See 28 U.S.C.   636(b)(1)(A).  To receive  such review, a
                  ___

                              
          ____________________

               3This rule  has its limitations.   See,  e.g., Compagnie  De
                                                  ___   ____  _____________
          Bauxites  De Guinee v. L'Union Atlantique S.A., 723 F.2d 357, 362
          ___________________    _______________________
          (3d Cir. 1983)  (indicating that discovery  may be disallowed  if
          the assertion of jurisdiction appears frivolous).  Moreover, even
          when the rule applies, the plaintiff is  not necessarily entitled
          to take  depositions.   Here,  Sunview never  attempted to  learn
          jurisdictional  facts  through  interrogatories  or  demands  for
          document production, see Fed. R.  Civ. P. 33, 34, and we  have no
                               ___
          way to tell either how effective these less intrusive devices may
          have been or to  what extent Flexel would have  sought protection
          from them (and if so, whether the magistrate would have permitted
          their use).

                                          4

          party must file objections within ten days from service of a copy

          of the order.  See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).  Unless an objection is
                         ___

          filed within this window of opportunity, a magistrate's  order on

          a nondispositive matter, such as a self-operating order granting,

          denying,  or  limiting  pretrial  discovery,  is  not  thereafter

          reviewable on  appeal.  See  Pagano v. Frank,  983 F.2d  343, 346
                                  ___  ______    _____

          (1st Cir. 1993); see also  Keating v. Secretary of HHS,  848 F.2d
                           ___ ____  _______    ________________

          271, 275 (1st Cir.  1988) (per curiam) (explicating same  rule in

          respect  to a  party's failure  to file  timeous objections  to a

          magistrate's  recommended disposition  of a  dispositive motion).

          The Civil Rules are quite explicit on this point:

                    Within 10 days after being served with a copy
                    of the magistrate judge's  order, a party may
                    serve and  file objections  to  the order;  a
                    party may not  thereafter assign  as error  a
                    defect in  the  magistrate judge's  order  to
                    which objection was not timely made.

          Fed.  R. Civ.  P.  72(a);  see  also  28  U.S.C.     636(b)(1)(A)
                                     ___  ____

          (empowering  the district  court  to reconsider  and set  aside a

          magistrate's  order on a nondispositive  matter when the order is

          clearly erroneous or contrary to law).

                    This  court has  applied  the plain  directive of  Rule

          72(a) straightforwardly and  in accordance with  its tenor.   See
                                                                        ___

          Pagano,  983 F.2d at 346;  Unauthorized Practice of  Law Comm. v.
          ______                     ___________________________________

          Gordon, 979 F.2d 11, 13-14 (1st Cir. 1992) (per curiam); see also
          ______                                                   ___ ____

          United States  v. Ecker,  923  F.2d 7,  9  (1st Cir.  1991)  (per
          _____________     _____

          curiam) (citing  28 U.S.C.    636(b)(1)(A)).   These  cases stand

          unambiguously  for  the proposition  that,  in  order to  receive

          review  of a magistrate's order  on a nondispositive  matter in a

                                          5

          court of  appeals, the  aggrieved  party first  must have  sought

          district court review by timely filing an objection to the order.

                    The instant  case presents no occasion  for a departure

          from this salutary  proposition.  Because Sunview never sought to

          have the district court review the magistrate's ruling, the issue

          of jurisdictional discovery is  by the boards and Sunview  cannot

          resurrect it in this venue.

                       B.  Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction.
                       B.  Dismissal for Want of Jurisdiction.
                           __________________________________

                    Sunview argued below, as it does here, that Thermaflex,

          Flexel's predecessor in interest,  see supra note 2, purposefully
                                             ___ _____

          availed  itself  of  the  privilege  of  doing  business  in  New

          Hampshire,  and therefore  subjected itself  (and Flexel,  as its

          successor)  to  suits in  New Hampshire  arising  out of  its New

          Hampshire-directed activities.    Judge Barbadoro  rejected  this

          thesis, holding, after an  exhaustive review of the record,  that

          Sunview  had pointed  to  "insufficient  contact[s] to  establish

          Thermaflex's  purposeful availment of New Hampshire as a place to

          do business."  Sunview  Condo. Ass'n v. Aztech Int'l,  Ltd., Civ.
                         _____________________    ___________________

          No. 95-418-B,  slip op. at  10 (D.N.H.  Sept. 3, 1996).   Sunview

          assigns error to this order.4  We see none.

                    To wax longiloquent would serve no useful purpose.   We

          have  stated before, and today reaffirm, that "when a lower court

          produces  a comprehensive,  well-reasoned decision,  an appellate

                              
          ____________________

               4Because Sunview  never  raised the  discovery issue  before
          Judge Barbadoro, see supra Part II(A), we pay no heed to its vain
                           ___ _____
          attempt to attack  the judge's  order on the  basis of  curtailed
          discovery.

                                          6

          court should refrain from writing at length to no other end  than

          to  hear its  own words  resonate."   Lawton v.  State  Mut. Life
                                                ______     ________________

          Assur. Co. of  Am., 101 F.3d 218, 220 (1st  Cir. 1996); accord In
          __________________                                      ______ __

          re San Juan Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litig., 989 F.2d  36, 38 (1st
          __________________________________________

          Cir.  1993).    That  principle  is  dispositive   here.    Judge

          Barbadoro's  rescript cites  the  relevant case  law, see,  e.g.,
                                                                ___   ____

          Sawtelle v. Farrell, 70 F.3d 1381 (1st Cir. 1995); Foster-Miller,
          ________    _______                                ______________

          Inc. v.  Babcock & Wilcox  Canada, 46  F.3d 138 (1st  Cir. 1995);
          ____     ________________________

          Ticketmaster-N.Y., Inc. v.  Alioto, 26 F.3d 201  (1st Cir. 1994);
          _______________________     ______

          Boit  v. Gar-Tech  Prods., Inc.,  967 F.2d  671 (1st  Cir. 1992),
          ____     ______________________

          applies the legal principles  derived therefrom to the documented

          facts in an impeccable manner, and reaches an  unarguably correct

          conclusion.   Hence, we  dispense with  this aspect of  Sunview's

          appeal  for substantially  the  reasons elucidated  in the  lower

          court's opinion.

                    We  need go  no  further.   Given Sunview's  procedural

          default on the discovery front and the paucity of  its proffer on

          the merits of  the jurisdictional issue, the  judgment below must

          be

          Affirmed.
          Affirmed.
          ________

                                          7