Whether defendants who make a purported 'special appearance' and obtain dismissal from a case without prejudice must be served with an amended complaint

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 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? damages. Did the district court err by failing to apply substantive Arizona law requiring application of Arizona’s unique 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 damages rule. Applying substantive state law on statutes of limitations. Did the defendants waive the defense by hoarding it until almost two ii QUESTIONS PRESENTED—Continued years after they filed their answers, letting the costly litigation go forward, and then springing the defense on Pacesetter in summary-judgment motions? If there was no waiver, did the district court properly refuse to let the trier of fact decide if, under the discovery rule or the concealment doctrine, the relevant statutes of limitations were tolled? This Court has never addressed whether the Arizona waiver-by-conduct doctrine would apply to this situation.