Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01920-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

JAMUL ACTION COMMITTEE, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

JONODEV CHAUDHURI, Acting 

Chairman of the National Indian Gaming 

Commission, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN 

ORDER 

I. BACKGROUND 

The court on November 3, 2015 signed, and on November 4, 2015 filed, a Status 

Order ordering plaintiffs to show cause within 14 days of the date of the order why the claims 

against defendants Tracie Stevens, Sally Jewell, Kevin Washburn, Paula L. Hart, Dawn Houle, 

and Jonodev Chaudhuri in their individual capacity should not be dismissed for lack of timely 

service of summons and complaint. ECF No. 115. On November 20, 2015, having received no 

response from plaintiffs, the court dismissed the six defendants in their individual capacity 

without prejudice. ECF No. 119. 

///// 

///// 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 129 Filed 01/08/16 Page 1 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Also on November 20, 2015, after the court filed its order, plaintiffs filed an 

untimely1 response to the court’s November 4, 2015 Order to Show Cause. ECF No. 120. In 

their response, plaintiffs argue that although the six defendants were served only in their official 

capacities, they generally appeared and waived service in their individual capacity by requesting 

an enlargement of time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint.2 Id. (citing ECF No. 53). 

Plaintiffs further argue that the six defendants waived the defenses of lack of personal 

jurisdiction, process or service of process under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 

by failing to timely file a motion to dismiss. See id. 

II. WAIVER THROUGH GENERAL APPEARANCE 

 “Defendants can waive the defect of lack of personal jurisdiction by appearing 

generally without first challenging the defect in a preliminary motion or in a responsive 

pleading.” Jackson v. Hayakawa, 682 F.2d 1344, 1347 (9th Cir. 1982). A general appearance 

occurs whenever a party participates in the case and demonstrates a “clear purpose to defend the 

suit,” Wilson v. Moore and Associates, Inc., 564 F.2d 366, 369 (9th Cir. 1977), such as by filing a 

responsive pleading or motion for summary judgment, see Jackson, 682 F.2d at 1347–48. 

The court first notes that it is not clear the six defendants appeared in their 

individual capacity, as compared to only in their official capacity, when they requested an 

enlargement of time. The request asserted that the defendants had not been served in their 

individual capacity, ECF No. 53 at 2, and defendants’ counsel submitted a declaration 

accompanying the request stating that they did not have authority to represent the defendants in 

their individual capacity. ECF No. 53, ¶ 3. 

Even if the six defendants had appeared in their individual capacity when they 

requested an enlargement of time to respond to the Second Amended Complaint, plaintiffs’ 

 1

 The court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that their response was actually due November 20 

or 23 based on Rules 6(c) and 26(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. See ECF No. 120 at 

1 n.1. 

2

 Plaintiffs again object to the court’s jurisdiction in light of the pending appeal before the 

Ninth Circuit. See ECF No. 120. The court has considered plaintiffs’ position and disagrees for 

the reasons provided in the court’s previous Status Order, ECF No. 115. 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 129 Filed 01/08/16 Page 2 of 3
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

3

argument is unpersuasive. The six defendants did not file an Answer or responsive pleading in 

their individual capacities, and the filing of a request for an enlargement of time to respond to the 

Second Amended Complaint does not demonstrate a “clear purpose to defend the suit.” Cf. 

Wilson, 563 F.2d at 369; Jackson, 682 F.2d at 1347–48. Accordingly, the six defendants did not 

waive a defect of lack of personal jurisdiction through a voluntary general appearance. 

III. WAIVER THROUGH FAILURE TO FILE TIMELY MOTION TO DISMISS 

A party waives any defense listed in Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2)–(5) 

by failing to assert it in the first filed responsive pleading. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). Plaintiffs 

contend the six defendants waived the defenses of lack of personal jurisdiction, process or service 

of process because they failed to timely file a motion to dismiss. This court previously enlarged 

the time for all defendants to respond to the Second Amended Complaint to forty-five days after 

service of all newly named defendants. ECF No. 58. Because plaintiffs never served the newly 

named defendants in their individual capacities, the forty-five day period never began to run. On 

November 4, 2015, the court modified its previous order and ordered all defendants to respond to 

the Second Amended Complaint within 30 days of the date the order was filed. ECF No. 115. 

On November 20, 2015, the court granted defendants’ request for an extension and extended the 

deadline for all defendants to respond to the Second Amended Complaint to December 21, 2015. 

ECF No. 119. Because the court dismissed the six defendants for lack of timely service on 

November 20, 2015, ECF No. 115, before a responsive pleading was due, the defendants did not 

waive any defenses by failing to timely file a motion to dismiss. 

IV. CONCLUSION 

Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that they served the six defendants in their 

individual capacities or that the defendants waived a defect of lack of personal jurisdiction or 

service. Accordingly, the court DENIES plaintiff’s request to vacate its November 20, 2015 

Order. Given the plaintiffs’ response, however untimely, the court DISCHARGES its November 

4, 2015 Order to Show Cause. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: January 7, 2016 

Case 2:13-cv-01920-KJM-KJN Document 129 Filed 01/08/16 Page 3 of 3