Salmeron v. District of Columbia, 113 F. Supp. 3d 263

Background

Plaintiffs (special-education clients) sued the District of Columbia under the IDEA seeking attorneys’ fees and costs and filed an Amended Complaint on Dec. 23, 2013.
Service was attempted on Alex Curtis, a legal assistant at the Office of Administrative Hearings, who was not a designated agent to accept service for the District per the Attorney General’s Office Order (2012–08).
Plaintiffs’ counsel received an email on Feb. 18, 2014 informing him that service was improper and listing authorized designees and the proper procedure, but did not re-serve those designees.
The Clerk entered default on Mar. 5, 2014 for failure to answer; plaintiffs moved for default judgment; the Court entered default judgment on Jan. 9, 2015.
The District moved to set aside the default and vacate the judgment; the Court found service was improper, concluding it lacked personal jurisdiction, vacated the default judgment, denied dismissal because the District agreed to accept service, ordered plaintiffs to re-serve within 30 days, and ordered plaintiffs’ counsel to show cause re: Rule 11 sanctions.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was service on the District proper under Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(j) and D.C. procedure?	Service on Curtis was adequate; plaintiffs’ process server was told Curtis could accept service and plaintiffs tried to follow procedure.	Curtis was not a designated agent; Office Order 2012–08 and D.C. rules require service on the Mayor/Attorney General or designated designees; plaintiffs were informed service was defective and failed to cure.	Service was improper; plaintiffs failed to perfect service under Rule 4(j).
Did lack of proper service render the default judgment void under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4)?	Plaintiffs argued the District had actual notice (email) so judgment should stand.	District argued improper service deprived the court of personal jurisdiction, making the judgment void.	Court held the default judgment was void for lack of personal jurisdiction and vacated it under Rule 60(b)(4).
Should the case be dismissed under Rule 4(m) for failure to timely serve?	Plaintiffs did not directly contest dismissal beyond asserting service was proper.	District initially sought dismissal under Rule 4(m) but withdrew that request and agreed to accept service.	Court denied dismissal; ordered plaintiffs to properly serve within 30 days and set schedule for further briefing.
Should plaintiffs’ counsel face Rule 11 sanctions for moving for default judgment despite notice of defective service?	Plaintiffs’ counsel offered defenses but did not dispute that he was informed of defective service before seeking default judgment.	District urged sanctions, pointing to misleading affidavit that defendant was personally served.	Court found counsel’s conduct troubling, ordered counsel to show cause within 30 days why Rule 11 sanctions should not be imposed.

Key Cases Cited

Jackson v. Beech, 636 F.2d 831 (D.C. Cir.) (vacatur of default judgment and limits on availability of default relief)
Lepkowski v. Department of Treasury, 804 F.2d 1310 (D.C. Cir.) (Rule 60(b) standards for vacating final judgments)
Eberhardt v. Integrated Design & Construction, Inc., 167 F.3d 861 (4th Cir.) (when a judgment is void for lack of jurisdiction)
Bell Helicopter Textron, Inc. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, 734 F.3d 1175 (D.C. Cir.) (relief mandatory under Rule 60(b)(4) if judgment is void)
Combs v. Nick Garin Trucking, 825 F.2d 437 (D.C. Cir.) (judgment void where service requirements not satisfied)
Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir.) (federal courts lack power to assert personal jurisdiction absent effective service)
Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746 (D.C. Cir.) (plaintiff bears burden to prove validity of service)
Chen v. District of Columbia, 256 F.R.D. 263 (D.D.C.) (actual notice does not cure defective service)
Whitehead v. CBS/Viacom, 221 F.R.D. 1 (D.D.C.) (notice alone cannot cure defective service)