Bruno-Laureano v. Emory College
Case Date: 02/24/1998
Court: United States Court of Appeals
Docket No: 97-2182
|
[NOT FOR PUBLICATION] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT ____________________ No. 97-2182 SONIA BRUNO-LAUREANO, ELIUD CANALES-ARROYO, ET AL., Plaintiffs,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- |