Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
June 3, 1993
No. 92-2286
SCOTT MARTEL,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
GEORGE F. STAFFORD, ADMINISTRATOR, ETC., ET AL.
Defendants, Appellees.
_________________________
ERRATA SHEET
ERRATA SHEET
_________________________
Before
Breyer, Chief Judge,
___________
Selya and Stahl, Circuit Judges.
______________
_________________________
a law
court's
school examination
dismissal
of the
question.
third
action
It follows
a district
brought by
plaintiff-
appellant
Scott
Martel
in
to
stay in
unsuccessful effort
damages
for
personal
accident.
the
has
court
injuries
Because
jurisdiction
what
been
consistently
long enough
sustained
district
in
to
an
court
recover
automobile
lacked
personal
such, we affirm.
I.
I.
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Leaving to
morass
in
which this
straightforward.
Vermont highway.
case is
mired,
On April 18,
Martel,
the prefatory
1985, an accident
facts are
occurred on a
by Wilhelmina S. Parker.
in the process
of moving
Pursuant
jurisdictions
into a new
located
to
appointed
resident, as executor.
Stafford
citizen of Maryland
home in
Vermont,
crash.
She died
owning property
Vermont.
Parker, a
exclusively in
her
will,
probate
George
F.
Stafford,
Maryland
courts
a
in
and
both
Massachusetts
in Maryland on
May 22,
1985 and
letters testamentary
It was
be in no
not until
particular hurry to
that he
assert
brought
identical
Vermont's
federal district
dismissed Martel's
court.
complaint as
the
applicable statute of
See
___
Vt.
Stat. Ann.
not commenced
course, each
court
time-barred on the
ground that
limitations pretermitted
the action.
tit. 12,
In due
557(a) (1973)
(providing that
within two
years of
are barred
the issuance
of letters
testamentary).
Undeterred,
statute
appellant
of limitations.1
diversity
action in
summary judgment
statute
of
jurisdiction,
and
search
22,
States District
bouillabaisse of
res
forum non
judicata,
conveniens.
of
1988, he
on a
limitations,
in
On November
the United
District of Massachusetts.
for
went
longer
filed
Court for
the
Stafford moved
grounds, including
absence
of
personal
The district
court
but offered no
ANALYSIS
ANALYSIS
While the
judicata,
we
are
____________________
district court
free to
affirm
judgment
of res
below on
any
independently
See Garside
___ _______
sufficient ground
made manifest
by the
record.3
(1st Cir.),
F.2d 36, 37
n.1
When, as now, a
should
not
hesitate
to scrutinize
that
defect
before
proceeding further.
F.2d
Cir.
34,
ordinarily
40
(1st
1991)
(stating
that
"courts
should
merits of a
civil action").
Because jurisdiction
is the
most
natural and obvious starting point here, and because the district
court's rationale strikes us as problematic
that
a dismissal on limitations
in
jurisdiction that
limitations,
see, e.g.,
___ ____
would
apply
18 Charles
4441,
at 366
A.
the
same statute
Wright et
(1981)
of
al., Federal
_______
we
tackle
the
Stafford
and sued
____________________
him
solely
in his
capacity
as executor
of the forum
of
Parker's estate.4
state determines a
representative party's
law
1565, at
governs
the
473
(2d
See Fed.
___
al., Federal
_______
ed. 1990).
determination
of
Thus,
whether
the
traditional
Massachusetts rule
executor or administrator
has been
that an
we shall
is not subject to
suit
See,
___
Me. R.R.,
________
67, 76-77
(1846)
(holding
that
Massachusetts); Langdon
_______
(same).
The
rule
personal
representative
v. Potter,
______
stems from
is
Old Colony
__________
the
executor
11 Mass. 313,
concept that
creature
of
5 Mass.
the
sue
in
313-14 (1814)
a
decedent's
state
which
appointed him or
her, and, as
such, possesses
no power to
act
____________________
Brown,
_____
283 Mass.
at
195;
see
___
148 F.
also
____
Derrick
_______
Supp. 496,
against foreign
v.
New England
____________
497 (D.
Mass. 1957)
executor on the
ground that
at all,
"the
rule has
not
rigidly applied"
Massachusetts
resident
is
615 (noting
and
surveying
foreign
executor
to
recover
payment for
services
rendered to
Massachusetts Supreme
Judicial
court's
personal jurisdiction
exercise
primarily because
Massachusetts.
share
the testator
the
over
in
The
state
the executor,
of contacts
with
both instances,
according to the
foreign
approved
wealth
resemblance
will,
testator.
decedent's
(SJC)
had a
certain factual
foreign state
the
of
Court
the
executor
terms of
resided
in
Massachusetts
than
Saporita,
________
Massachusetts.
the
See id. at
___ ___
plaintiff
612-13.
worked
in
she
performed there.
lived
and
See id.
___ ___
Moreover, the
testator's links
with Massachusetts
were pervasive;
he resided
be his home,
in the
The court
. to
allow
the
worked
court
to exercise
and who
had
been served
case
before
us
personal
in a foreign jurisdiction,
in Massachusetts
contacts
is
at
in hand
Id. at 618.
___
considerable
remove.
aught
that
appears,
Parker
had
not
single
tie
From
to
____________________
Massachusetts.
state.
And, moreover,
Had Parker
out of
to sue in
the
could
have obtained
jurisdiction over
her
said enough.
Because the
Saporita exception
________
with Massachusetts to
within
behavioral
the
physical
patterns
reach of
assume
process
decretory
server,
significance.
And
appellant has
personal
jurisdiction.
Therefore,
we
must
Stafford,
like
nonentity, ergo,
the
state(s)
For our
apply
the
the
part, we
stereotypical
his
can envision
traditional
not amenable to
of
rule.
foreign
Under it,
executor,
appointment.
none.6
Giving
is
boundaries of
force
to
the
____________________
Massachusetts
that
the
cases and
district
court
the policies
lacked
behind them,
personal
we conclude
jurisdiction
over
add a
that
longstanding rule
small
a
eschatocol.
Massachusetts
court
Absent some
would
persuasive
abandon
its
gravity
obviously lies
manufacture
elsewhere7
we are
not at
the rule.
liberty to
We have repeatedly
preference to
federal
court
an available
to
steer
state forum
state
law
may not
into
expect the
unprecedented
configurations.
of N.A., Inc.,
______________
929 F.2d
881, 889
(1st Cir.
reshape
Massachusetts's judge-made
1991); Porter
______
v.
v. Gannett Co.,
___________
law, we
are not;
rather, a
Consent (Waiver).
Consent (Waiver).
________________
argues
that
jurisdiction of a Massachusetts
Stafford
consented
to
the
____________________
United
States
There,
the defendant,
brief
filed
in the
District of
Vermont.
plaintiff's
threat
district
court,
Massachusetts
to bring
an
speculated
residency,
District
action
that,
the proper
Court for
in
response
in Maryland's
because
of
fall-back
the
to
federal
Stafford's
forum would
be
to
basic
court's
in
__
premise
personam
________
is
sound:
jurisdiction
party
may
before
the
commencement of an action.
Ins. Co.
________
243 U.S.
But,
consent to personal
occurred here.
93, 95
695, 699
jurisdiction cannot
The allegedly
consenting words,
in a responsive argument to
a speculative
and concerning a
context,
the
to which
jurisdiction.
plaintiff
clings,
Taken
quoted
____________________
verbatim in the
________
margin,9 constituted no
that,
an
because
executor's
more than an
residence
controls
assertion
for
venue
purposes, see, e.g., Smith v. Harris, 308 F. Supp. 527, 528 (E.D.
___ ____ _____
______
Wis.
1970),
venue
_____
would
Notwithstanding appellant's
venue
and personal
consent
to a
likely
jurisdiction
a passing
are not
agreement
to appoint
must be
an
Massachusetts.
the two
concepts,
same.
Pre-suit
far more
clear and
the
remark directed to
in
effort to muddle
court's jurisdiction
unequivocal than
lie
another subject.
agent for
service
of process);
_________
_________________________
any
right
to
in
__
personam
________
jurisdiction);
registration
consent);
to
do
within
state
business
v.
a particular forum
same transaction that are brought against him in the same forum).
Furthermore,
trial court
by
unlike,
say,
factual
a party's attorney
in one case
allegations
in
briefs submitted
cannot routinely be
used in
____________________
See Hardy
___ _____
v. Johns-Manville Sales Corp., 851 F.2d 742, 745 (5th Cir. 1988);
__________________________
slip
judgment, a
op.
at
21]
(holding
binding
Kassel,
______
875 F.2d at
statements
force
in
that,
opposing
summary
highly
unusual
contained in
in
a pro se
___ __
circumstances,
see
___
brief may
be used
in cross-
reveals
no
word, act,
omission
that
we find that
may properly
be
contrary, defendant
answer and
raised the
by motion,
and in
jurisdictional objection
his briefs
below and
It
To the
in his
on appeal.
is a winning
____________________
___
point,
properly preserved,
never abandoned,
and sufficient
to
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSION
We need go
no further.11
As Massachusetts has
never
Affirmed.
Affirmed.
________
Costs to appellees.
Costs to appellees.
__________________
____________________