Opinion ID: 2982664
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Participation in the Hearing

Text: “‘[D]efects in personal jurisdiction are not waived by default when a party fails to appear or to respond . . . until after the default judgment was entered.’” Gerber v. Riordan, 649 F.3d 514, 520 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Reynolds v. Int’l Amateur Athletic Fed’n, 23 F.3d 1110, 1121 (6th Cir. 1994)). The question is whether any appearances or filings in the district court constituted “‘legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court.’” Id. at 519 (quoting Days Inns, 445 F.3d at 905). Larry Gandee did not file an answer or other responsive pleading and did not assert that service was defective prior to the entry of default judgment against him. While mere presence at the hearing would not have constituted a waiver, we agree with the district court that Larry Gandee legally submitted to the jurisdiction of the court by his voluntary appearance and participation in the evidentiary hearing on August 22, 2011. Briefly, the hearing began with the magistrate judge asking Alisa Gandee whether she had consulted an attorney. She answered by referring to her husband, who asked if he could “say something for her.” Larry Gandee addressed the court, explaining that although he and his wife regretted and did not condone D.G.’s actions, they had exhausted all of their funds on an attorney for him. Although the first interjection was to say something for his wife, Larry Gandee did not (and could not) represent her during the hearing. Nor are we persuaded by defendants’ suggestion that Larry Gandee made only “nominal vocalizations” or did not speak on his own behalf. Case No. 14-3159 8 Wells v. Rhodes During the testimony of William Wells, who was the last of the plaintiffs to testify, Larry Gandee interjected himself and briefly cross-examined the witness about his claim that he feared for the safety of his children. In fact, one of the questions he asked was: “How does suing me for a monetary value take away the fear?” At the conclusion of the evidence, the magistrate judge offered Alisa and Larry Gandee the opportunity to make a statement for the record and they both did. Mr. Gandee’s comments extended almost two pages of transcript and addressed the merits, offered apologies, and explained his family’s position.5 After Larry Gandee finished speaking, plaintiffs’ counsel orally moved to amend their motion in order to request default judgment against all three defendants. Plaintiffs’ counsel raised the question of D.G.’s representation, not sure whether appointment of a guardian ad litem would be appropriate, and stated that the summons and complaint for both Larry Gandee and D.G. had been delivered to Alisa Gandee. The magistrate judge clarified plaintiffs’ request, confirmed with plaintiffs’ counsel that proof of service had been filed with the court, and stated that he would take the matter under advisement and issue a report and recommendation. In concluding the hearing, the magistrate judge asked Alisa Gandee to provide a current home address for receipt of the report and recommendation; explained that she and Larry would have 14 days from the date of mailing to file any objections for the district court to consider; and warned that the district court’s acceptance of the report and recommendation would result in a collectible judgment. When the magistrate judge added that this was a serious matter that should be considered carefully, Larry Gandee interrupted to ask several questions about the maximum amount of damages that could be awarded to plaintiffs. Finally, Larry Gandee acknowledged the magistrate judge’s final warning to look carefully at the report and recommendation and decide 5 Alisa Gandee also addressed the court during the examination of Mr. Wells to explain that they had removed D.G. from school and had him tutored at home. Case No. 14-3159 9 Wells v. Rhodes whether to seek legal advice at that point. The record demonstrates that Larry Gandee voluntarily appeared and participated in a hearing on the merits without asserting the defective service defense or objecting to the court’s jurisdiction over him. We agree with the district court that his actions constituted legal submission to the jurisdiction of the court and forfeiture of the jurisdictional defense. Moreover, despite having participated and been advised of the seriousness of the matter, Larry Gandee did not object to the court’s jurisdiction over him at the hearing, after the hearing, or in objections to the report and recommendation that recommended the entry of default judgment against him. Accordingly, the default judgment entered against Larry Gandee is not void for lack of personal jurisdiction.