UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION
March 26, 2012
NUANCE COMMUNICATIONS, INC., ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Paul S. Grewal United States Magistrate Judge
United States District Court For the Northern District of California
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF KRISHNA REDDY'S CROSS- MOTION FOR JUDGMENT (Re: Docket No. 49)
Plaintiff Krishna Reddy ("Reddy") cross-moves for judgment based on Defendant Nuance Communications, Inc.'s ("Nuance") failure to answer or otherwise respond to certain alleged 20 claims.*fn1 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.
Nuance moved to dismiss three of the ten alleged claims in Reddy's
25 motion was timely filed and was granted by the court.*fn2
Because Nuance did not answer or 26
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
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.*fn4
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 complaint. Nuance contends under Rule 15(a)(3), it
then has fourteen days after service of the
amended complaint to respond. Nuance also contends that the official
capacity rule that Reddy proffers has no application to private entities.
The court agrees with Nuance. By filing even a partial Rule 12(b) motion, Nuance's time to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint is extended.*fn5 The court also finds no support for 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.*fn6
IT IS SO ORDERED.