Suiter v. Barra
5:24-cv-00054
| W.D. Va. | Mar 20, 2025Background
- Plaintiff, Antwhon Suiter, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed suit in July 2024 against Mary Barra (CEO of GM), General Motors LLC (GM), and Chevrolet relating to an allegedly defective 2018 Chevrolet Malibu LT.
- Suiter asserted claims for breach of implied warranty, negligence, fraudulent concealment, and violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and the Virginia Consumer Protection Act, seeking damages and a replacement vehicle.
- The court granted Suiter's in forma pauperis status and ordered the U.S. Marshal to serve the summons and complaint on all defendants.
- The Marshal left the summonses at a reception desk at the business address of the defendants, but did not identify any individual recipient.
- Defendants moved to quash service of process under Rule 12(b)(5), arguing improper service; Suiter opposed and sought to amend his complaint, also moving to dismiss Chevrolet as a non-entity.
- The court addressed the sufficiency of service and whether to permit amendment of the complaint.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Suiter properly served Mary Barra under Rule 4(e) | Service at business address was to an agent authorized to receive process | No proof of service to an authorized agent or individual; only left at reception | Service was insufficient; motion to quash granted |
| Whether Suiter properly served GM and Chevrolet under Rule 4(h) | Service at business address was sufficient as to corporate agents | Only left at reception, not to an officer, managing agent, or authorized agent | Service was insufficient; motion to quash granted |
| Whether actual notice to defendants cures deficient service | Defendants had actual notice, so service defects should be excused | Actual notice does not cure substantial defects in service | Actual notice does not suffice; proper service required |
| Whether Suiter should be permitted to amend his complaint and drop Chevrolet as a defendant | Amendment supports a viable claim and does not prejudice defendants | No opposition (limited appearance to quash only) | Leave to amend granted; motion to dismiss Chevrolet denied as moot |
Key Cases Cited
- Karlsson v. Rabinowitz, 318 F.2d 666 (4th Cir. 1963) (liberal construction of service rules when actual notice is received)
- Armco, Inc. v. Penrod-Stauffer Bldg. Sys., Inc., 733 F.2d 1087 (4th Cir. 1984) (actual notice does not replace need for compliance with Rule 4)
- Scott v. Md. State Dep’t of Labor, 673 F. App’x 299 (4th Cir. 2016) (plaintiff bears burden to prove sufficiency of service)
- Poole v. Pass, 351 F. Supp. 2d 473 (E.D. Va. 2005) (summarizing proper methods of service under Virginia law)
- Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231 (4th Cir. 1999) (criteria for leave to amend pleadings)