Lopez v. Lambert, Inc. ( 1992 )

USCA1 Opinion

          December 18, 1992     [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]


                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT




                              _________________________

          No. 92-1863

                              MILAGROS RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ,

                                Plaintiff, Appellant,

                                          v.

                               WARNER-LAMBERT COMPANY,

                                 Defendant, Appellee.

                              _________________________

                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

               [Hon. Juan M. Perez-Gimenez, Senior U.S. District Judge]
                                            __________________________

                              _________________________

                                        Before

                                Selya, Circuit Judge,
                                       _____________

                            Bownes, Senior Circuit Judge,
                                    ____________________

                                Stahl, Circuit Judge.
                                       _____________

                              _________________________

               Luis R.  Mellado-Gonzalez and Mary  Cele Rivera-Martinez  on
               _________________________     __________________________
          brief for appellant.
               Carl Schuster,  with  whom  McConnell  Valdes  Kelley  Sifre
               _____________               ________________________________
          Griggs & Ruiz-Suria was on brief, for appellee.
          ___________________

                              _________________________



                              _________________________















                    Per Curiam.  Having reviewed the record in this appeal,
                    __________

          we are fully satisfied  (a) that the plaintiff did  not establish

          the  existence of  in personam  jurisdiction over  the defendant-
                             __ ________

          appellee Warner-Lambert Company, and  (b) that the district court

          did  not  impermissibly  truncate  plaintiff's   opportunity  for

          discovery  anent   jurisdictional  facts.     Hence,  plaintiff's

          complaint against the appellee was properly dismissed for want of

          personal jurisdiction.  That ends the matter.



          Affirmed.
          ________


































                                          2