Anthony Pullar v. Louis Cappelli, 148 A.3d 551

Background

Pullar (plaintiff) contracted orally in New York in 2006 to serve as captain of defendant Cappelli’s sailboat and claimed a $150,000 bonus payable after a three‑year term; plaintiff lived in Rhode Island at contract time but later in Florida; Cappelli is a New York resident.
Plaintiff was terminated in August 2009 without payment of the bonus; Cappelli later agreed to pay $10,000/month but reneged.
Pullar sued in Rhode Island Superior Court in April 2011 for breach of contract; Cappelli’s answer asserted lack of personal jurisdiction.
For ~3.5 years the case remained active: discovery, depositions, court‑annexed arbitration (which resulted in an award for Pullar), pretrial motions, and a jury trial setting, with Cappelli participating throughout.
After the case was set for trial, Cappelli moved for summary judgment asserting lack of personal jurisdiction and arguing that a corporate entity (Helios) — not he personally — employed Pullar; the trial justice dismissed Pullar’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction.
The Supreme Court vacated that dismissal, holding Cappelli forfeited his personal‑jurisdiction defense by long delay and active participation in litigation.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Rhode Island has personal jurisdiction over Cappelli	Cappelli had sufficient contacts and/or waived/forfeited the defense by long participation in Rhode Island proceedings	No minimum contacts personally; any contacts were of Helios; lack of in personam jurisdiction preserved by answer	Court held Cappelli forfeited the defense by delay and active litigation participation and remanded the case
Whether asserting lack of jurisdiction in the answer preserves the defense despite later conduct	Pullar: Even if raised, defense can be forfeited by delay or conduct	Cappelli: Raising defense in answer preserves it perpetually	Court: Raising in the answer preserves the defense only initially; defense can be forfeited by conduct/delay
Standard for forfeiture of personal‑jurisdiction defense	Forfeiture occurs when defendant’s delay or conduct gives plaintiff reasonable expectation that case will be defended on merits or wastes court resources	Forfeited only if defendant intentionally waived	Court adopted federal forfeiture doctrine: delay/active participation (discovery, arbitration, pretrial) can forfeit the defense
Effect of arbitration and pretrial participation on jurisdictional defense	Participation and arbitration in forum counsel against belated jurisdictional challenge	Participation in arbitration does not bind personal jurisdiction if corporate formalities separate parties	Court: Participation (including arbitration) supports finding of forfeiture and consent to adjudicative process in forum

Key Cases Cited

International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (established minimum‑contacts due process standard)
Rose v. Firstar Bank, 819 A.2d 1247 (R.I. 2003) (explaining due‑process limits on long‑arm jurisdiction)
Cerberus Partners, L.P. v. Gadsby & Hannah LLP, 836 A.2d 1113 (R.I. 2003) (standard for reviewing prima facie personal‑jurisdiction showings)
Hall v. Kuzenka, 843 A.2d 474 (R.I. 2004) (Rule 12(b) timing and preservation of jurisdictional defenses)
Hamilton v. Atlas Turner, Inc., 197 F.3d 58 (2d Cir.) (forfeiture of personal‑jurisdiction defense after years of participation)
Yeldell v. Tutt, 913 F.2d 533 (8th Cir.) (defense may be lost by delay, formal submission, or conduct)
Continental Bank, N.A. v. Meyer, 10 F.3d 1293 (7th Cir.) (active litigation conduct can forfeit jurisdictional defense)
Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U.S. 694 (personal‑jurisdiction is an individual right that can be waived)