Forest v. Trans Carriers, Inc.

Opinion

USCA1 Opinion

October 18, 1995

                                [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]

                            UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

                                FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT


____________________


No. 95-1529



                                    BETSY FOREST,



                                Plaintiff, Appellant,



                                          v.



                                TRANS CARRIERS, INC.,



                                 Defendant, Appellee.


____________________



                     APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT



                              FOR THE DISTRICT OF MAINE



                     [Hon. Morton A. Brody, U.S. District Judge]
                                            ___________________



                                 ____________________



                                        Before



                                Selya, Stahl and Lynch,

                                   Circuit Judges.
                                   ______________



                                 ____________________



            Mark S. Kierstead on brief for appellant.
            _________________

            Peter T. Marchesi on brief for appellee.
            _________________


____________________


____________________



Per Curiam.   We have carefully  reviewed the record  in
                 __________



            this case  and  affirm the  dismissal  for lack  of  personal



            jurisdiction.   The record  indicates that, although  much of



            the  information would  have been available  to her  from the



            proper sources, plaintiff  failed to place in  the record the



            "specific  facts"  necessary  to support  her  jurisdictional



            allegation.  Boit  v. Gar-Tec Products,  Inc., 967 F.2d  671,
                         ____     ______________________



            680  (1st  Cir.  1992).    The  record  likewise  shows  that



            plaintiff never  asked that the court permit discovery on the



            limited   issue   of   personal   jurisdiction.      See  id.
                                                                 ___  __



            Consequently, plaintiff has  not met her burden, id.  at 675,
                                                             __



            of  showing  that  defendant's   contacts  with  Maine   were



            sufficiently  "substantial"  or sufficiently  "continuous and



            systematic"  so that  the exercise  of personal  jurisdiction



            over it in this case would comport with due process.



                 Affirmed.  See Loc. R. 27.1.
                 ________   ___