Devine v. Griffenhagen, 195.
| Decision Date | 24 February 1940 |
| Docket Number | No. 195.,195. |
| Citation | 31 F. Supp. 624 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
| Parties | DEVINE v. GRIFFENHAGEN et al. |
David Devine, of Waterbury, Conn., pro se.
Bronson, Lewis, Bronson & Upson (by Lawrence L. Lewis), of Waterbury, Conn., for defendants.
The complaint in this case was filed December 16, 1939, and process immediately issued. On January 9, 1940, counsel for the defendants filed (1) an appearance stating "Kindly enter our appearance for all defendants in the above entitled action", (2) a motion for more particular statement, and (3) a motion to dismiss or to quash return of service of summons upon the ground that personal service was not obtained upon the defendants.
The plaintiff contends that by filing the appearance set forth above the defendants waived right to object to the jurisdiction of the court over their persons or to the sufficiency of service of process. The parties have been heard upon that preliminary contention without prejudice on the merits of the pending motions.
Prior to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. following section 723c, to be sure, the filing by a defendant of a general appearance or of a motion addressed to the merits was treated as a consent to the jurisdiction of the court over the person of such a defendant and as a waiver of his right to object to the sufficiency of process. Pollard v. Dwight, 4 Cranch 421, 2 L.Ed. 666; Grable v. Killits, 6 Cir., 282 F. 185, certiorari denied 260 U. S. 735, 43 S.Ct. 95, 67 L.Ed. 488; Prudential Insurance Co. v. McKee, 4 Cir., 81 F.2d 508.
But under F.R.C.P., Rule 12 (b), it is provided that "no defense or objection is waived by being joined with one or more defenses or objections in a responsive pleading or motion." Thus, by express provision of the rule the defendants have not lost their right to press their motion to quash by reason of the fact that they simultaneously filed a motion for a more particular statement.
I am not unmindful of the fact that in Johnson & Gould v. Schlitz Brewing, D.C., 28 Fed.Supp. 650, the court felt that a motion under 12 (b) (1-5) without hazard of waiver might be joined with a motion to dismiss under 12 (b) (6), but if joined with a motion for a bill of particulars under 12 (e), it would be waived. I think it unnecessary to give Rule 12 such a technical construction; indeed that construction seems to me inconsistent with the Rule.
For Rule 12 (g) and (h) indicates clearly that for purposes of permissive joinders and waivers all the motions provided for in Rule 12 are treated alike; not only that but it is required that all defenses and objections available at the time "shall" be joined under penalty of waiver except that at the pleader's option he may move under (b) (1-5) without joining other motions, such as a motion for a bill of particulars, without hazard of waiver. In the case cited it was thought a bill of particulars was neither a "defense" or an "objection" within the meaning of Rule 12(b). To me it would seem that a motion for a bill of particulars necessarily embodied an objection (within the meaning of 12(b) that the opposing pleading was "not averred with sufficient definiteness or particularity to enable him the moving party properly to prepare his responsive pleading or to prepare for trial," (within the meaning of 12(e). And the objection that a party must at any one moment be ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fahey v. O'Melveny & Myers
...3 Cir., 1944, 139 F.2d 871, 874; Gerber v. Fruchter, 2 Cir., 1945, 147 F.2d 120; Blank v. Bitker, 7 Cir., 135 F.2d 962; Devine v. Griffenhagen, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 624; 2 Moore's Federal Practice, p. 2260, 2nd It is true that the lower court made a formal finding that these nonresident defenda......
-
D. W. Onan & Sons, Inc. v. Superior Court
...over the person is not waived by answering to the merits. Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co., D.C., 33 F.Supp. 414. In Devine v. Griffenhagen, D.C., 31 F.Supp. 624, 625, counsel for defendants filed (1) an appearance "Kindly enter our appearance for all defendants in the above entitled act......
-
ABG Prime Grp., LLC v. Innovative Salon Prods.
...to remain outside even while he steps within."); see also Bjorgo v. Weerden , 342 F.2d 558, 560 (7th Cir. 1965) ; Devine v. Griffenhagen , 31 F.Supp. 624, 626 (D. Conn. 1940) ; but see Means v. United States Conf. of Catholic Bishops , 836 F.3d 643, 648 (6th Cir. 2016). Instead, the Rules p......
-
Sadler v. Pennsylvania Refining Co.
...the final disposition of the case. Moore's Federal Practice Under the New Rules, Vol. 1, pages 644 to 651; David Devine v. Edwin Oscar Griffenhagen et al., D.C., 31 F.Supp. 624. The hearing of the Motion before me was begun on March 28, 1940, and because of disputed contentions as to facts ......