Duru v. Mitchell
289 F. Supp. 3d 112
| D.C. Cir. | 2018Background
- Pro se plaintiff Rose Duru filed a March 2017 suit against nearly 30 defendants arising from a prior Texas financial dispute; the complaint was vague and largely a list of claims and demands.
- Twelve defendants moved to dismiss on several grounds: lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, insufficient service of process, and failure to state a claim; several also sought a vexatious-litigant injunction.
- The Court repeatedly warned Duru that failure to respond could be treated as conceded and extended deadlines; Duru did not meaningfully oppose the motions and instead filed numerous premature motions for default judgment and an unsuccessful appeal.
- The Court found Duru had not shown adequate service under Rule 4 for many defendants and that several defendants had waived service/personal-jurisdiction defenses by not raising them.
- The Court concluded Duru failed to plead facts establishing subject-matter jurisdiction or plausible federal claims under Rules 8 and 12(b)(6), granted the motions to dismiss, sua sponte dismissed claims against unserved defendants without prejudice, and denied the requested vexatious-litigant injunctions without prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Adequacy of service of process | Service was sufficient as shown by certificates and delivery receipts | Service was defective under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(c)(2); proof must show non-party served | Court: Service inadequate for many defendants; dismissed claims against unserved defendants without prejudice and granted one motion to dismiss for insufficient service |
| Failure to respond to motions to dismiss / Local Rule 7(b) | (No substantive opposition filed) | Motions should be treated as conceded under Local Civ. R. 7(b) after prolonged nonresponse | Court: Applied Local Rule 7(b) and treated motions as conceded; granted remaining dismissals |
| Subject-matter jurisdiction and pleading sufficiency | Complaint purportedly states state and some federal claims | Complaint fails to plead facts showing diversity, supplemental jurisdiction, or plausible federal claims; Rule 8/Iqbal standard not met | Court: Dismissed state-law claims for lack of jurisdiction and dismissed federal claims for failure to state a claim |
| Request for vexatious-litigant injunction | N/A — Duru opposed by inaction | Defendants sought injunction barring Duru from filing further suits without leave, citing prior vexatious findings | Court: Denied injunctions without prejudice because movants failed to make the required particularized showing under In re Powell framework |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (plausibility standard for pleading under Rule 8)
- Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) (party asserting federal jurisdiction bears burden of establishing it)
- In re Powell, 851 F.2d 427 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (standards and caution for imposing vexatious-litigant injunctions)
- Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (discussing tension between Local Rule 7(b) and Rule 12(b)(6) and treatment of unopposed motions)