Thank You For Submiting Feedback!
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
July 31, 1991
[*21] SELYA, Circuit Judge
We revisit today a shopworn fracas involving the appellant, Transamerican Steamship Corporation (Trastco), and appellee Interpole, Inc. When the litigation first appeared in our venue, we rebuffed Trastco's efforts to set aside a default judgment which had been entered against it in Interpole's favor, but remanded the cause for the sole purpose of determining whether the district court, at the time it entered the default judgment, had acquired jurisdiction over Trastco's corporate persona. General Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 899 F.2d 109 (1st Cir. 1990) (Interpole [**2] I). Following discovery and an evidentiary hearing, the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire decided that it had jurisdiction and, therefore, refused to grant Trastco's Rule 60(b)(4) motion. 2 Although we travel a different analytical route than the district court, we arrive at the same destination. Accordingly, we uphold the court's assertion of jurisdiction and reject Trastco's renewed appeal.
We eschew exegetic treatment of the historical antecedents of this litigation, referring those who may hunger for greater detail to our earlier opinion, Interpole I, 899 F.2d at 110-11. For present purposes, it [**3] suffices to remind the reader that, in 1980, General Contracting & Trading Co. (GCT) ordered 4,500 wooden utility poles from Interpole, a New Hampshire corporation. The poles were produced for Interpole in the southern United States and sent by the manufacturer to Mobile, Alabama for transshipment to GCT in Oman. Interpole contracted with Trastco to transport the poles by sea from Mobile to Mina Qaboos. The voyage was less than a smashing success.
In May 1985, GCT sued Interpole in New Hampshire's federal district court seeking damages associated with the delayed delivery of its order (Suit No. 1). Interpole filed a third-party complaint for indemnity against Trastco. Trastco failed to respond, a failure that led, eventually, to the entry of a default. When Trastco finally bestirred itself and tried to set aside the default, the district court refused to grant the requested relief. Trastco then brought a separate suit against Interpole in the same federal district court, charging fraud and misrepresentation in connection with the same overall transaction (Suit No. 2).
Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.
940 F.2d 20 *; 1991 U.S. App. LEXIS 17174 **
THE GENERAL CONTRACTING & TRADING CO., LLC, Plaintiff, Appellee, v. INTERPOLE, INC., Defendant, Appellee, v. TRANSAMERICAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, Third-Party Defendant, Appellant
Prior History: [**1] Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of New Hampshire; Hon. Martin F. Loughlin, Senior U.S. District Judge.
counterclaim, district court, personal jurisdiction, court's jurisdiction, courts, default, personam jurisdiction, benefits, purposes, damages
Civil Procedure, Pretrial Judgments, Default & Default Judgments, Relief From Default, In Rem & Personal Jurisdiction, In Personam Actions, Challenges, Jurisdiction, General Overview, Consent