Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp.
820 F.Supp. 562 (D.Kan. 1993) (1993)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(g) and 12(h)(1), a party waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction if they file a pre-answer motion, such as a Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement, and fail to include the jurisdictional defense in that initial motion.
Facts:
- Associates Commercial Corp ('Associates') hired Bob Howard to repossess a tractor-trailer unit belonging to the plaintiff.
- Without Associates' knowledge, Howard subcontracted the repossession job to Clark Investigation & Recovery ('Clark').
- Randall Lett and another Clark employee conducted the actual repossession of the vehicle in Tennessee.
- The plaintiff alleged that the repossession was conducted through a breach of peace, causing injury.
- The plaintiff further alleged that Clark and its employees were acting as agents of Associates during the repossession.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued defendant Associates Commercial Corp in the United States District Court for the District of Kansas.
- Associates filed a third-party complaint against Howard, Clark, and Lett, seeking indemnity.
- Third-party defendants Clark and Lett filed a pre-answer motion for a more definite statement pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(e).
- Associates filed a response to the motion, clarifying its claims.
- Third-party defendants then filed an answer to the third-party complaint, in which they raised the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction for the first time.
- Third-party defendants subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against them, arguing the court lacked personal jurisdiction.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a party waive the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 by filing a pre-answer motion for a more definite statement without including the jurisdictional defense?
Opinions:
Majority - Belot, J.
Yes, a party waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to include it in their initial pre-answer motion. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g) requires a party who makes a pre-answer motion to consolidate all other available Rule 12 defenses and objections into that single motion. Rule 12(h)(1)(A) explicitly states that the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if it is omitted from a motion described in subdivision (g). A Rule 12(e) motion for a more definite statement is a motion made 'under this rule' and therefore triggers the consolidation requirement. Because the third-party defendants, Clark and Lett, filed a Rule 12(e) motion without raising their available personal jurisdiction defense, they waived their right to assert it later in their answer or in a subsequent motion to dismiss.
Analysis:
This case serves as a critical procedural lesson on the strict application of the waiver provisions in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. It clarifies that the consolidation requirement applies to any pre-answer motion filed under Rule 12, not just Rule 12(b) motions to dismiss. The decision emphasizes that a party's first defensive move is decisive; failing to raise waivable defenses like personal jurisdiction at the earliest opportunity results in their permanent forfeiture. This holding pressures defendants to conduct a thorough analysis of all potential defenses before filing any motion with the court to avoid inadvertently losing crucial objections.
Unlock the full brief for Clark v. Associates Commercial Corp.