Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-00098-90/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 442
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1981 Job Discrimination (Race)

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EDWARD ALVARADO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

FEDERAL EXPRESS CORPORATION,

Defendant. /

No. C 04-0098 SI

ORDER RE: DEFENDANT’S RULE

60(b)(4) MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM

JUDGMENTS

Defendant has filed a motion to vacate the judgments entered in favor of plaintiffs Alvarado and

Evans on the ground that the judgments were entered against the wrong defendant, FedEx Corporation,

and should have been entered against Federal Express Corporation. To the extent defendant’s motion

is directed at the practicalities of enforcing a judgment against plaintiffs’ current and former employer

– which is Federal Express Corporation – the Court will amend the judgments pursuant to Rule 60(a)

to substitute Federal Express Corporation in the place of FedEx Corporation.

However, to the extent defendant’s motion contends that the judgments are void because the

Court does not have personal jurisdiction over FedEx Corporation and because FedEx Corporation was

never served with a summons, the Court finds these contentions lack merit. Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 12(h)(1) provides, in relevant part:

A defense of lack of personal jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency

of process, or insufficiency of service of process is waived (A) if omitted from a motion

in th circumstances described in subdivision (g), or (B) if it is neither made by motion

under this rule nor included in a responsive pleading or an amendment thereof permitted

by Rule 15(a) to be made as a matter of course.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(1). The Court finds that FedEx Corporation has waived its defenses of personal

jurisdiction and insufficiency of process by failing to satisfy even the “minimum steps” outlined in Rule

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1038 Filed 03/18/08 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

12(h). See Peterson v. Highland Music, Inc., 140 F.3d 1313, 1318 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that “[m]ost

defenses, including the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction, may be waived as a result of the course

of conduct pursued by a party during litigation,” and that even if a party complies with Rule 12(h), the

party’s subsequent litigation conduct could waive defense). Here, not only did FedEx Corporation never

file a motion challenging personal jurisdiction or service, but defendant vigorously litigated this case

for over three years, including through numerous rounds of motion practice and three trials. 

As set forth above, the Court GRANTS in part defendant’s motion. (Docket No. 710). The

Court will issue separate amended judgments. The Court DENIES plaintiffs’ request for Rule 11

sanctions. (Docket No. 776).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 18, 2008 SUSAN ILLSTON

United States District Judge

Case 3:04-cv-00098-SI Document 1038 Filed 03/18/08 Page 2 of 2