Opinion ID: 78295
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Waiver and Timeliness of the Government's Motion to Dismiss

Text: We also reject the district court's remaining grounds for denial of the government's motion to dismiss. The district court concluded that the government had waived the issue of timeliness by not asserting it in the motion for continuance of the ancillary hearing. A defense to a claim for relief must be asserted in a responsive pleading only if a responsive pleading is required, however. See Fed. R.Civ.P. 12(b). Where a pleading does not require a response, an opposing party may assert at trial any defense to that claim. Id. Here, neither § 853 nor Rule 32.2 required the government to file a responsive pleading asserting its defenses to a third-party petition. See 21 U.S.C. § 853; Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2. The fact that the government failed to raise the issue of untimeliness in its motion for continuance did not waive the issue. Accordingly, the district court erred in concluding that the government had waived the issue of timeliness and in denying the government's motion to dismiss on this basis. Nor was the government's motion to dismiss untimely. While Rule 32.2 suggests the timing of a court's disposition of a motion to dismiss, it does not set forth requirements for when a motion to dismiss must be filed. Specifically, under Rule 32.2(c)(1)(A), the court in the ancillary proceeding may, on motion, dismiss the petition for any lawful reason. Fed. R.Crim.P. 32.2(c)(1)(A). Rule 32.2(c)(1)(B) permits the court to allow discovery [a]fter disposing of any motion filed under Rule 32.2(c)(1)(A) and before conducting a hearing. Id. 32.2(c)(1)(B). When a motion to dismiss is filed before discovery or a hearing, it should be treated like a motion to dismiss a civil complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b). Pacheco v. Serendensky, 393 F.3d 348, 352 (2d Cir.2004). Once discovery ends, a party may move for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56. Fed.R.Crim.P. 32.2(c)(1)(B). As the government concedes, the better practice may be to file the motion to dismiss before discovery and the ancillary hearing. There is no requirement that this be done, however. The district court thus erroneously based its denial of the government's motion to dismiss on a finding that the motion was untimely.