Pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)(a), a party may amend its pleading once as a matter of

course within 21 days after serving it.

Under Rule 12(h)(1)(B), a party waives the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction by
failing to include it in a pre-answer motion, a responsive pleading, or in an
amendment allowed by Rule 15(a)(1), as a matter of course

The failure to include the defense of lack of personal jurisdiction in the defendant’s
answer would have waived the defense. The defense of lack of personal jurisdiction
(unlike lack of subject matter jurisdiction) can be waived, as discussed above.

In a jury trial, a party may move for a judgment as a matter of law with regard to a
defense as well as a claim. A party may make such a motion once the opposing party
has been fully heard on the issue.

A party cannot move for a judgment as a matter of law with respect to a claim or
defense until the other party has been fully heard on that matter.

Rule 50 permits the court to entertain a motion for a judgment as a matter of law with
regard to defenses as well as claims.

a motion for a judgment as a matter of law, must be made prior to the submission of
the case to the jury.

If a plaintiff fails to prosecute his case and, in response to a defendant’s motion, the
court dismisses the action, the dismissal is with prejudice and operates as an
adjudication on the merits.

While a voluntary dismissal of an action by a plaintiff is usually without prejudice if

undertaken before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for
summary judgment or if all other parties agree, this rule does not apply when the
defendant is the party seeking a dismissal.

Although there is a federal rule that requires service of process within 90 days of the
filing of a complaint, there is no similar rule regarding the prosecution of a case.

Each party in a civil case is entitled to three peremptory challenges. An attorney does
not need to articulate a reason for exercising a peremptory challenge unless called
upon by the court to do so. As long as the peremptory challenge is not being used to
exclude a potential juror on an unconstitutional basis (i.e., race or gender), there is no
other restriction on the exercise of such a challenge.