Cioffi v. Gilbert Enterprises, Inc., 769 F.3d 90

Plaintiff Alison Cioffi, an exotic dancer, sued Club Fantasies in Massachusetts for a dangerous workplace allegedly caused by the Club’s failure to provide a safe environment.
Club Fantasies is a Rhode Island entity; the action was removed to federal court in Massachusetts on diversity grounds.
The district court held the Club lacked sufficient contacts to support personal jurisdiction in Massachusetts.
Judge Saylor transferred the case to the District of Rhode Island under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a).
Plaintiff then attempted an interlocutory appeal, which was dismissed for lack of diligent prosecution after a show-cause order questioning appellate jurisdiction.
After transfer, the Rhode Island district court dismissed the case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as untimely; plaintiff appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the transfer order under §1406(a) is appealable.	Cioffi framed the issue as jurisdiction over the Club in Massachusetts.	Club contends transfer was proper under §1406(a) and challenge must target the transfer.	Transfer order is appealable only after final judgment; here not properly challenged.
Whether plaintiff waived a challenge by failing to argue about the transfer or the limits period.	Plaintiff attempted to challenge jurisdictional basis indirectly.	Appellant did not develop arguments on the transfer or the limitations ruling.	Plaintiff waived challenges by failing to present developed arguments on the relevant orders.
What orders are appealable and reviewable in this posture.	Plaintiff treated the case as if the district court dismissed for jurisdiction.	Only the transfer and the dismissal orders are appealable; jurisdictional reasoning did not become an appealable order.	Only the transfer order and the dismissal order are appealable; others not reviewable.

California v. Rooney, 483 U.S. 307 (1987) (limits on appellate review of interlocutory jurisdictional rulings)
In re Shkolnikov, 470 F.3d 22 (1st Cir. 2006) (district court speaks through its orders; reviewable decisions only)
Downey v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 266 F.3d 675 (7th Cir. 2001) (importance of reviewing actual orders rather than reasoning)
Casillas-Díaz v. Palau, 463 F.3d 77 (1st Cir. 2006) (unflagging obligation to spell out contentions; failure to do so waives appeal)
United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1 (1st Cir. 1990) (requirement to present developed arguments on appeal)
Cianbro Corp. v. Curran-Lavoie, Inc., 814 F.2d 7 (1st Cir. 1987) (reviewing transfer decisions for abuse of discretion; within-circuit transfers)
Vega-Encarnación v. Babilonia, 344 F.3d 37 (1st Cir. 2003) (unopposed motions do not relieve district court from reviewing the complaint)
Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) (discussing purposeful availment and long-arm jurisdiction principles)
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts standard for in-personam jurisdiction)
N.Y. Marine & Gen. Ins. Co. v. Lafarge N. Am., Inc., 599 F.3d 102 (2d Cir. 2010) (reviewing denial of transfer after final judgment)