Canuto v. Carter, 273 F. Supp. 3d 127

Plaintiff Teresita Canuto, proceeding pro se, alleges repeated sexual assaults by U.S. military personnel who entered her apartments (Panorama City and Northridge, CA) using ceiling access and sleeping gas; she asserts constitutional, federal statutory, and state common-law claims and seeks damages and return of stolen items.
Defendants include two Army officers and various federal officials (not yet served) and private entities: DePauw HK Property Management (misnamed), Cirrus Asset Management, Inc., and Bank of America, N.A.
DePauw moved to quash service and to dismiss; Court found the proper suable entity is Woodman-Sylvan Properties, Inc. (DePauw was a misnomer) but service was defective and granted leave to amend and re-serve.
Cirrus moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; it provided evidence it is a California corporation with no contacts in D.C.; Court found neither general nor specific jurisdiction and dismissed Cirrus.
Bank of America moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) on statute-of-limitations grounds for claims arising from missing documents from a 2009 safe-deposit box; Court found service was not proven and the claims (state and federal) are time-barred and dismissed Bank of America.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Capacity / misnomer as to DePauw	Sued entity named DePauw HK Property Management	Entity actually is Woodman-Sylvan Properties, Inc.; argue capacity issue/service	Court: misnomer — plaintiff sued a suable corporation (Woodman‑Sylvan); grant leave to amend name
Service of process on DePauw/Woodman‑Sylvan	Service by certified mail to address sufficed	Service by mail was deficient under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 and state rules; mail recipient was not authorized agent	Court: service defective under federal, CA, and D.C. rules; quashed service; plaintiff given 30 days to amend and re‑serve
Personal jurisdiction over Cirrus	Alleged nationwide/federal claims and unspecified jurisdiction	Cirrus: California corp with no D.C. contacts; no basis for general or specific jurisdiction	Court: no general or specific jurisdiction; dismissed Cirrus for lack of personal jurisdiction
Timeliness / statute of limitations as to Bank of America	Plaintiff did not address limitations; contends procedural objections to timing of motion	Bank: alleged acts occurred in 2009; state claims (≤3 years) and federal claims (§1981 four years, §1983 three years) are time‑barred	Court: service not proven but motion timely; all claims against BOA accrued in 2009 and are barred; dismissed BOA

Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915 (general jurisdiction requires contacts so continuous and systematic as to render the corporation at home)
Gorman v. Ameritrade Holding Corp., 293 F.3d 506 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (limits of §13‑334 and service by mail to foreign corporations)
Montalvo v. Tower Life Bldg., 426 F.2d 1135 (5th Cir. 1970) (misnomer vs. capacity to be sued)
Jones v. Kirchner, 835 F.3d 74 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (D.C. limitations period applies to §1983 claims brought in D.C.)
Lattisaw v. District of Columbia, 118 F. Supp. 3d 142 (D.D.C. 2015) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal on statute‑of‑limitations where facts are clear on face)
Williams v. United States, 396 F.3d 412 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (private parties generally do not act under color of state law for §1983)
Muñoz v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, [citation="427 F. App'x 1"] (D.C. Cir. 2011) (accrual of §1983 claim when wrongful conduct occurs)