Bruno-Laureano v. Emory College

USCA1 Opinion

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]



                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT

                                 ____________________





        No. 97-2182







                 SONIA BRUNO-LAUREANO, ELIUD CANALES-ARROYO, ET AL.,



                               Plaintiffs, Appellants,



                                          v.



                     EMORY COLLEGE OF PUERTO RICO, INC., ET AL.,



                                Defendants, Appellees.



                                 ____________________





                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO



                   [Hon. Salvador E. Casellas, U.S. District Judge]
___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Torruella, Chief Judge,
___________

                          Selya and Boudin, Circuit Judges.
______________



                                 ____________________



            Ricardo L. Torres  Munoz and Roman, Rios, Torres & Rivera on brief
________________________     ____________________________

        for appellants.

            Marlene Aponte Cabrera on brief for appellees.
______________________





                                 ____________________




February 20, 1998

                                 ____________________

































                 Per Curiam.    Upon careful  review  of the  briefs  and
__________



            record, we conclude that this  appeal is suitable for summary



            disposition.   The record shows that the  September 27, 1996,



            order  allowed plaintiffs  to file  an  amended complaint  to



            correct the  name of one  of the defendants, and  the amended



            complaint  filed in November  1996 complied with  that order.



            When defendants answered  that amended complaint and  did not



            raise any  jurisdictional defense, they waived  any objection



            based on lack of service of the summons.  See Fed. R. Civ. P.
___



            12(h)(1).  Accordingly, the amended complaint should not have



            been   dismissed  for  failure   to  serve  the   summons  on



            defendants.



                 The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
_______



            district court for reinstatement of the amended complaint and



            further  proceedings consistent with  this opinion.   See 1st
___



            Cir. Loc. R. 27.1.











































                                         -2-