Court Opinion

ID: 2965112
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2015-09-21 21:35:34.587402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:11.422233
License: Public Domain

USCA1 Opinion

	

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
                                 ____________________

        No. 97-2182

                 SONIA BRUNO-LAUREANO, ELIUD CANALES-ARROYO, ET AL.,

                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,

                                          v.

                     EMORY COLLEGE OF PUERTO RICO, INC., ET AL.,

                                Defendants, Appellees.

                                 ____________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
                                               ___________________

                                 ____________________

                                        Before

                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
                                           ___________
                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
                                            ______________

                                 ____________________

            Ricardo L. Torres  Munoz and Roman, Rios, Torres & Rivera on brief
            ________________________     ____________________________
        for appellants.
            Marlene Aponte Cabrera on brief for appellees.
            ______________________

                                 ____________________

                                      
                                  February 20, 1998
                                 ____________________

                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
                 __________

            record, we conclude that this  appeal is suitable for summary

            disposition.   The record shows that the  September 27, 1996,

            order  allowed plaintiffs  to file  an  amended complaint  to

            correct the  name of one  of the defendants, and  the amended

            complaint  filed in November  1996 complied with  that order.

            When defendants answered  that amended complaint and  did not

            raise any  jurisdictional defense, they waived  any objection

            based on lack of service of the summons.  See Fed. R. Civ. P.
                                                      ___

            12(h)(1).  Accordingly, the amended complaint should not have

            been   dismissed  for  failure   to  serve  the   summons  on

            defendants. 

                 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
                                 _______

            district court for reinstatement of the amended complaint and

            further  proceedings consistent with  this opinion.   See 1st
                                                                  ___

            Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.

                                         -2-