Staton v. Vesta Corp.

• Decision Date: 11 July 2022
• Docket Number: 22-cv-00374 (APM)
• Parties: TONY STATON, Plaintiff, v. VESTA CORPORATION, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Columbia

TONY STATON, Plaintiff,
v.
VESTA CORPORATION, Defendant.

No. 22-cv-00374 (APM)

United States District Court, District of Columbia

July 11, 2022

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

AMIT P. MEHTA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

In this action, pro se Plaintiff Tony Stanton sues Defendant Vesta Corporation, complaining of various events and conditions related to his rental of an apartment owned, presumably, by Defendant. See Compl., ECF No. 1-6 [hereinafter Compl.], at 12-13. Defendant moves to dismiss on two grounds: (1) insufficient process and (2) failure to state a claim, see FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(4), 12(b)(6). Def.'s Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. 6 [hereinafter Def.'s Mot.], Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Def.'s Mot., ECF No. 6-1 [hereinafter Def.'s Mem.]. Although the court agrees that both grounds for dismissal are valid, the court declines to dismiss with prejudice. The court will permit Plaintiff (1) to cure the deficiency in process and (2) re-plead his complaint. Plaintiff's motion for pro bono counsel is denied without prejudice. See Pl.'s Mot. for Appointment of Pro Bono Counsel, ECF No. 10.

As to insufficient process, Defendant argues that the case must be dismissed because the summons that accompanied service of the complaint was not signed by the clerk of court and does not bear the court's seal, as required by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(a)(1)(F), (G). Def.'s Mem. at 4-5. The court agrees that Plaintiff failed to comply with those requirements.

1

However, in this Circuit, trial courts must “liberally construe[]” the requirements of Rule 4 “in the interest of doing substantial justice” and assess “the propriety of service . . . on its own facts within the limits of the flexibility provided by the rule itself.” FTC v. Compagnie de Saint-Gobain-Pont-a-Mousson, 636 F.2d 1300, 1312 n.61 (D.C. Cir. 1980). This approach is “consistent with the modern conception of service of process as primarily a notice-giving device.” Id. Consequently, the sole case the court has found from this District Court similar to this one-involving the absence of the clerk's signature and the seal of the court on a summons-declined to dismiss it. See Miller v. Holzmann, No. 95-cv-1231 (JMF), 2006 WL 568722, at *23-25 (D.D.C. Mar. 9, 2006), report and recommendation adopted in part and overruled in part by No. 95-cv-1231 (RCL), 2007 WL 710134, at 9-10 (D.D.C. Mar. 6, 2007); see also 4A CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT, ARTHUR R. MILLER & EDWARD H. COOPER, FEDERAL...