EUGENE LIPOFSKY, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT,
v.
NEW YORK STATE WORKERS COMPENSATION BOARD, ROBERT STEINGUT, LEE FIRST, MARTAIN MANKOWITZ, CARL SACHS, THE STATE INSURANCE FUND, JOHN FENDOR, CAROL SENDAR, AND A. FRANKLIN MAHONEY, DEFENDANTS-APPELLEES
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
A district court may not dismiss a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue on its own motion without first providing the parties notice and an opportunity to be heard.
Plaintiff filed suit in Florida, and defendants' counsel indicated they would object to personal jurisdiction and venue. Without notice, the district …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Responsive Pleading cases and more on FLexlaw
EDMONDSON, Circuit Judge:
The issue in this appeal is whether a district court — without prior notice to the parties of its intended action — may dismiss on its own motion a claim for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. We hold that it may not.
Plaintiff Eugene Lipofsky, a Florida resident, filed his complaint in the Southern District of Florida, seeking to enforce a purported judgment entered in New York awarding him workers’ compensation for events which occurred in New York. Because plaintiff also asserted federal constitutional claims, subject matter jurisdiction was not founded solely on diversity. Defendants are allegedly all residents of New York. The New York Attorney General’s Office, on behalf of defendants, filed a motion for extension of time to answer the complaint. They included an affidavit in support of their motion advising that they probably would object to, among other things, personal jurisdiction and venue. The district court never acted on the request for extension. Instead the court on its own motion dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction over defendants and improper venue. No notice was given the parties that the court was considering dismissal. Plaintiff appeals from the district court’s order on the ground that the district court’s dismissal of the complaint, on its own motion and without prior notice to the parties, was erroneous as a matter of law.
Lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue, unlike lack of subject matter jurisdiction which requires dismissal on the court’s own motion if not raised by the parties,1 are waivable defects. Harris Corp. v. National Iranian Radio, Etc., 691 F. 2d 1344, 1349, 1353 (11th Cir.1982); Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12(h)(1). Both defenses are waived when a defendant files a responsive pleading or Rule 12 motion failing to assert them.2 See Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12(b), (h)(1).
In the absence of a waiver, a district court may raise on its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal jurisdiction; but the court may not dismiss without first giving the parties an opportunity to present their views on the issue. See Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F. 2d 1486 (9th Cir.1986) (upholding sua sponte order to plaintiff to show cause why the complaint should not be dismissed for improper venue). The defendants in some cases may wish to waive the defenses, and the plaintiffs ought to have an opportunity to respond to the defenses before their cases are dismissed. Because no prior notice was given to the parties that the district court intended to dismiss the complaint, the order of the district court must be REVERSED.
. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12 provides in part, “Whenever it appears by suggestion of the parties or otherwise that the court lacks jurisdiction of the subject matter, the court shall dismiss the action.” Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 12(h)(3).
. We do not address the district court’s power pursuant to the doctrine of forum non conve-mens.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Cited By (29 total)
-
Patrice Jones v. Sayer (Fla. 4th DCA 2021)…n the answer); Santana v. Henry, 12 So. 3d 843, 847–48 (Fla. 1st DCA 2009) (holding that the trial court erred by sua sponte dismissing a petition based on a technicality not raised by either party). But cf. Lipofsky v. N.Y. State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1258 (11th Cir. 1988) (recognizing that “[i]n the absence of a waiver, a district court may raise on its own motion an issue of defective venue or lack of personal jurisdiction; but the court may not dismiss without first giving the parties an oppo…
-
Stubbs v. Wyndham Nassau Resort & Crystal Palace Casino, 447 F.3d 1357 (11th Cir. 2006)…ion over his person by not objecting to it in a responsive pleading or a [motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12].” Palmer v. Braun, 376 F. 3d 1254, 1259 (11th Cir.2004) (citing Lipofsky v. New York State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F. 2d 1257, 1258 (11th Cir.1988)). In this case WHC’s motion to dismiss was entitled: DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS DEFENDANT WYNDHAM INTERNATIONAL, INC. AS IMPROPER PARTY AND DEFENDANT WYNDHAM NASSAU RESORT AND CRYSTAL PALACE CASINO’S MOTION TO DISMISS FOR…1 / 2
-
Nikki McIntosh v. Royal Caribbean Cruises, Ltd., 5 F.4th 1309 (11th Cir. 2021)…y v. McDonough, 547 U.S. 198, 210 (2006) (“Of course, before acting on its own initiative, a court must accord the parties fair notice and an opportunity to present their positions.") (citation omitted); Lipofsky v. New York State Workers Comp. Bd., 861 F.2d 1257, 1258 (11th Cir. 1988) (holding that if a court raises on its own the issue of venue or personal jurisdiction, it “may not dismiss without first giving the USCA11 Case: 19-10562 Date Filed: 07/27/2021 Page: 5 of 11 parties an opportunity to presen…
Previewing 3 of 29 citing cases — full citator treatment, depth of discussion, and citing context are member features.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceAuthorities Cited
- Harris Corp. v. Nat'l Iranian Radio & Television & Bank Melli Iran, 691 F.2d 1344 (11th Cir. 1982)
- Costlow v. Weeks, 790 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1986)
- Mahendra Rudra Sharma v. Stevas, 790 F.2d 1486 (9th Cir. 1986)