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)

Download PDF
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?