Emekekwue v. Offor
United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
2012 WL 5249414 (2012)
- Written by Serena Lipski, JD
Facts
Bertram Emekekwue (plaintiff) was a secretary of the Obosi Community Association of New York Inc. (OCA). Following the death of his ex-wife, Vanessa Emekekwue, Bertram applied for financial benefits from the OCA. Chinwe Offor, a past president of the OCA, sent Bertram an email accusing Bertram of contributing to Vanessa’s death by terminating Vanessa’s medical insurance. Bertram filed suit against Offor, asserting a claim for defamation and other claims, in federal court. On December 7, 2011, Offor filed a motion to dismiss Bertram’s complaint, arguing that Bertram’s complaint should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure (FRCP) 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim and FRCP 12(b)(2) for lack of personal jurisdiction. Bertram filed an amended complaint on December 16, and Offor filed an amended motion to dismiss on January 3, 2012. Offor’s amended motion to dismiss did not mention personal jurisdiction, solely discussing FRCP 12(b)(6). On May 15, the court granted Offor’s motion to dismiss as to all claims except Bertram’s defamation claim. On June 1, Offor filed an answer to Bertram’s amended complaint, asserting as an affirmative defense that the court lacked personal jurisdiction over Offor. On July 24, Offor moved for summary judgment, arguing only that the court lacked personal jurisdiction. At issue was whether Offor had waived her right to assert the court’s lack of personal jurisdiction by failing to include that argument in her amended motion to dismiss.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Rambo, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.