Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02363/USCOURTS-cand-4_15-cv-02363-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 820
Nature of Suit: Copyright
Cause of Action: 17:501 Copyright Infringement

---

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHEETAH MOBILE, INC., et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

APUS GROUP,

Defendant.

Case No. 15-cv-02363-HSG 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF FOR 

BIFURCATED BRIEFING OF RULE 

12(B) MOTION

Re: Dkt. No. 17

Pending before the Court is Defendant APUS Group’s motion for administrative relief for 

bifurcated briefing of Rule 12(b) motion. Dkt. No. 17. Defendant seeks to initially brief only its 

challenges to sufficiency of process and service of process under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

12(b)(4) and 12(b)(5), and to brief its remaining Rule 12(b) challenges based on lack of personal 

jurisdiction, lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, improper venue, choice of law, and failure to state 

a claim in a later motion if the initial motion is denied. Plaintiffs Cheetah Mobile, Inc., Cheetah 

Mobile America, Inc. and Cheetah Technology Corp. oppose the motion. See Dkt. No. 19.

Rule 12(g)(2) provides that “a party that makes a motion under this rule must not make 

another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but 

omitted from its earlier motion.” If a party fails to assert the defenses of lack of personal 

jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient process, or insufficient service of process in its initial 

Rule 12(b) motion or in a responsive pleading, the party waives those defenses. Fed. R. Civ. P. 

12(h)(1). The defenses of failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, failure to join a 

party under Rule 19, and lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are not subject to Rule 12(g)(2)’s 

limitation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2); 12(h)(2)-(3); see also FTC v. Innovative Mktg., Inc., 654 

F. Supp. 2d 378, 383-83 (D. Md. 2009) (listing cases in which successive motions to dismiss for 

failure to state a claim have been allowed). 

Case 4:15-cv-02363-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/15/15 Page 1 of 2
2

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

United States District Court

Northern District of California

Based on a plain reading of Rule 12, the Court finds that it does not have the authority to 

grant Defendant’s motion. Rule 12(h)(1) explicitly disallows the bifurcation of motions based on 

the Rule 12(b)(2)-(5) defenses. In other words, if Defendant does not raise its anticipated defenses 

of lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue in its initial Rule 12(b) motion, the Rule 

requires that those defenses be waived. Defendant offers no authority to the contrary. 

Accordingly, the Court DENIES the motion.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 15, 2015

______________________________________

HAYWOOD S. GILLIAM, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 4:15-cv-02363-HSG Document 20 Filed 06/15/15 Page 2 of 2