Pacesetter Consulting, LLC v. Herbert A. Kapreilian, et al.

Special appearance. In federal courts, “special appearances” no longer exist—and have not for many decades. But lawyers file them every day and district courts regularly allow and honor them as if they actually meant something. But they do not. When, as here, defendants make a purported “special appearance” and obtain dismissal from a case without prejudice, may the plaintiff serve those former specially appearing lawyers with a copy of an amended complaint—or must the plaintiff serve the amended complaint on the former defendants that had made the special appearances? Surprisingly, this is not an issue this Court has ever addressed, although special appearances are filed daily in federal courts. This Court has also never addressed whether special appearances even exist—or should exist. Do they exist? Benefit-of-the-bargain damages. Did the district court err by failing to apply substantive Arizona law requiring application of Arizona’s unique benefitof-the-bargain damages rule? This Court has never addressed whether a district can refuse to apply a plaintiff ’s decision to seek damages under a state-law benefit-of-the-bargain damages rule. Applying substantive state law on statutes of limitations. Did the defendants waive the statute-oflimitations defense by hoarding it until almost two