Reddy v. Nuance Communications, Inc. et al
Filing
76
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF KRISHNA REDDY'S CROSS-MOTION FOR JUDGMENT by Judge Paul S. Grewal finding as moot 75 Motion to Appear by Telephone (psglc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 3/26/2012)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
SAN JOSE DIVISION
11
KRISHNA REDDY,
12
Plaintiff,
v.
13
14
15
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET
AL.,
Defendants.
16
17
18
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 11-CV-05632-PSG
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF
KRISHNA REDDY’S CROSSMOTION FOR JUDGMENT
(Re: Docket No. 49)
Plaintiff Krishna Reddy (“Reddy”) cross-moves for judgment based on Defendant Nuance
19
Communications, Inc.’s (“Nuance”) failure to answer or otherwise respond to certain alleged
20
claims. 1 Nuance opposes the motion. Pursuant to Civ. L.R. 7-1(b), the motion is taken under
21
submission and the hearing scheduled to be held on March 27, 2012 is vacated. Having reviewed
22
the papers and considered the arguments of the parties,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Reddy’s cross-motion for judgment is DENIED.
24
Nuance moved to dismiss three of the ten alleged claims in Reddy’s complaint. Nuance’s
25
motion was timely filed and was granted by the court. 2 Because Nuance did not answer or
26
1
27
28
Reddy first filed this cross-motion together with her opposition to Nuance’s motion to dismiss
and sought to have both motions heard on the same day. Because Reddy’s cross-motion did not
provide adequate notice, the cross-motion was rescheduled for March 27, 2012. See Docket No. 49.
2
See Docket No. 62.
1
Case No.: C 11-05632 PSG
ORDER
1
otherwise respond to the seven remaining claims, Reddy contends that the seven remaining claims
2
are subject to entry of judgment under Rule 12(h). Reddy also argues that she is entitled to entry of
3
judgment because Nuance failed to substitute itself for the individual defendants who were sued in
4
their “official capacities.” Relying on the doctrine of respondeat superior, Reddy notes that the
5
individuals were named as defendants based on their conduct while employed at Nuance, were
6
properly served, and have not answered or otherwise responded. 3
7
Nuance responds that it is well-settled that filing a Rule 12(b) motion, even a partial one,
extends the time for it to respond to the complaint. 4 In light of the court’s order dismissing claims
9
six, nine, and ten of the complaint, no later than March 30, 2012, Reddy must file an amended
10
United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
8
complaint. Nuance contends under Rule 15(a)(3), it then has fourteen days after service of the
11
amended complaint to respond. Nuance also contends that the official capacity rule that Reddy
12
proffers has no application to private entities.
13
The court agrees with Nuance. By filing even a partial Rule 12(b) motion, Nuance’s time to
14
answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended. 5 The court also finds no support for
15
Reddy’s proposition that entry of judgment should be entered because Nuance failed to substitute
16
itself for the individual defendants who allegedly acted in their official capacities. The cases cited
17
by Reddy address public, not private, entities. 6
18
IT IS SO ORDERED.
19
Dated: March 26, 2012
20
_________________________________
PAUL S. GREWAL
United States Magistrate Judge
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
The Clerk of the Court entered default against some of the individual defendants. See Docket No.
37. The individual defendants, however, now move to set aside default. See Docket No. 65. Reddy
previously moved for entry of default by the court. See Docket No. 45. Both motions regarding
default are scheduled to be heard on April 24, 2012. See Docket No. 69.
4
See, e.g., Godlewski v. Affiliated Computer Services, Inc., 210 F.R.D. 571, 572 (E.D. Va. 2002);
and Brocksopp Eng’r, Inc. v. Back-Simpson Ltd., 136 F.R.D. 485, 486 (E.D. Wisc. 1991).
5
See, e.g., Dymits v. Am. Int’l Group, 2 Fed. Appx. 818, 820 (9th Cir. 2001) (extension of time to
answer complaint is within the district court’s discretion); Business Incentives, Inc. v. Sony Corp.
of America, 397 F.Supp 63, 64 (S.D.N.Y. 1975). Cf. Gerlach v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 448
F.Supp. 1168, 1174 (E.D. Mich.1978).
6
See Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991); Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159 (1985).
2
Case No.: C 11-05632 PSG
ORDER
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?