Securities and Exchange Commission v. Eric J. Watson

Background

The Securities and Exchange Commission sued Eric J. Watson, Oliver-Barret Lindsay, and Gannon Giguere. The opinion states that Watson was the only remaining defendant. On June 30, 2025, the court denied Watson’s first motion to dismiss the Commission’s complaint and granted the Commission’s motion to dismiss Watson’s amended counterclaim. The court also ordered Watson to answer the complaint within 21 days.

Watson then filed a second motion asking the court to dismiss the complaint. He again argued that the Commission had not properly served him under the Hague Convention, asserting that Spain required formal transmission through its Central Authority. He also argued for the first time that the court lacked personal jurisdiction—that is, legal power over him. Watson additionally requested a stay, or pause, of the proceedings if the court denied his motion.

Service of the Complaint

The court declined to reconsider its prior ruling that service was proper. The court had previously considered the Commission’s attempts to serve Watson through Spain’s Central Authority, the unsuccessful attempts at service, and the Commission’s later request for permission to serve by publication. It had concluded that alternative service was permissible under the circumstances of this case.

The court stated that Watson presented no new arguments supporting reconsideration and that his renewed challenge sought to relitigate an issue already decided. The court therefore denied the service-related basis for his second motion.

Personal Jurisdiction

The court held that Watson waived his personal-jurisdiction defense. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(g)(2) generally prevents a party who has made one motion under Rule 12 from making another such motion based on a defense that was available but omitted earlier. Rule 12(h)(2), as quoted by the court, provides that a defense under Rule 12(b)(2), including lack of personal jurisdiction, is waived when it is omitted in those circumstances.

Watson’s first motion raised improper service and, as the court understood it, failure to state a claim. His second motion raised lack of personal jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(2). The court concluded that this defense had been available when Watson filed his earlier motion, as well as when he filed his counterclaim and amended counterclaim. The court also noted that Watson had known about the action since at least June 2024 and did not address the Commission’s waiver argument in his reply.

The court acknowledged Watson’s self-represented status but stated that representing oneself does not excuse compliance with procedural and substantive law. It concluded that Watson was procedurally barred from raising personal jurisdiction at this stage and denied the motion on that ground.

Request for a Stay and Disposition

The court denied Watson’s request to stay the proceedings because it had found that service was proper and that Watson waived his personal-jurisdiction defense. The court also noted that Watson’s prior motion had been denied, he had filed an answer, and the court had directed the case to proceed toward general pretrial and settlement proceedings.

The court’s conclusion states that Watson’s second motion to dismiss the complaint or stay the proceedings is DENIED with prejudice. It directed the parties to resume general pretrial and settlement proceedings with Magistrate Judge Valerie Figueredo and directed the Clerk of Court to terminate the motion docketed at ECF No. 117.