
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                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT                                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-
