Kangethe v. Government of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
891 F. Supp. 2d 69
D.D.C.2012Background
- Kangethe, an employee of DOES, sues DOES and District of Columbia for Title VII, ADEA, and EPA violations.
- Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 13, 2011; the District moved to dismiss arguing DOES is not a suable entity and service was improper.
- Kangethe pro se contested service on DOES and amended the complaint on January 17, 2012; district renewed motion to dismiss on January 23, 2012.
- The court denied default judgments and denied the District’s motion to dismiss at this stage, noting DOES is non sui juris.
- The court held that if Kangethe amends to name the District and properly serves it by November 15, 2012, the case may proceed; otherwise it will be dismissed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is DOES a suable entity for damages? | Kangethe argues DOES can be sued for damages. | Does is non sui juris and cannot be sued. | DOES is non sui juris; cannot be sued for damages. |
| Does service on DOES toll the time to file an answer? | Tolling applies; District’s motions toll response time. | Tolling applies until resolution of motions; no default yet. | Tolling applies; no default entered. |
| Should Kangethe be entitled to default judgment for lack of an answer? | District failed to file an answer timely. | Responsive motions toll and default is inappropriate. | Default judgment denied. |
| Can the case proceed if the District is named as a party and properly served? | District should be substituted as proper defendant; DOES cannot be final. | Must name and serve the District; DOES cannot be sued. | Case cannot proceed against DOES; amended complaint naming the District may proceed if properly served. |
| What is the remedy if Kangethe amends to name the District and serves it properly by a deadline? | Amendment should allow case to proceed. | Limited to proper service and named defendant; otherwise dismissal. | If amended complaint naming District and proper service by Nov 15, 2012, case may proceed; otherwise dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Trifax Corp v. Dist. of Colum., 53 F. Supp. 2d 20 (D.D.C. 1999) (non sui juris entities cannot be sued absent authorization)
- Keith v. Washington, 401 A.2d 468 (D.C. 1979) (District indispensable party in damages actions)