Home › Case briefs › Civil Procedure

Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S.A.

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit · Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedurePersonal JurisdictionVenueRule 12(b)(2)Rule 12(g)Rule 12(h)(1)(A)waiversua sponte

Facts

Uffner obtained a marine insurance policy for his yacht, La Mer, from La Reunion, T.L. Dallas, and Schaeffer. While sailing from Fajardo, Puerto Rico toward St. Thomas, the yacht caught fire near Isla Palominos and sank in Puerto Rican waters. Uffner submitted a claim through his broker, but the insurers denied it on the ground that there was no current out-of-water survey. The defendants moved to dismiss on subject matter jurisdiction, failure to state a claim, and improper venue, but did not raise lack of personal jurisdiction.

Issue

Whether the district court could dismiss the action for lack of personal jurisdiction when defendants had not raised that defense in their Rule 12 motions, and whether venue in Puerto Rico was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2) because the insured vessel sank there.

Rule

A defendant waives lack of personal jurisdiction by omitting that defense from its first Rule 12 motion when the defense was then available, and once waived the court may not raise personal jurisdiction sua sponte. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2), venue is proper in any district where a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claim occurred; the court looks to the entire sequence of events underlying the claim rather than a single triggering event, and an event need not itself be disputed to be substantial.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Nina Alvarez sued North Harbor Casualty and Blue Keel Underwriting in federal court in Miami based on diversity after they denied coverage for storm damage to her charter boat. The defendants filed a pre-answer Rule 12 motion arguing failure to state a claim and improper venue, but they did not mention lack of personal jurisdiction, even though all jurisdictional facts were already known to them.

If the defendants later file a second motion asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, how should the court rule?

Explanation. Under Rules 12(g) and 12(h)(1)(A), a defendant who makes a Rule 12 motion must include any then-available personal jurisdiction objection or the defense is waived. The majority opinion treated omission from the first defensive move as consent to the court's jurisdiction when the defense was available at that time. (Derived from Uffner v. La Reunion Francaise, S.A. (n.d.).)