William Skewes-Cox v. Georgetown University Law Center
24-5065
D.C. Cir.Apr 14, 2025Background
- William Skewes-Cox, a Georgetown Law School graduate, developed cancer during his last semester and received academic accommodations for late assignments.
- Skewes-Cox later disagreed with the grading process after his graduation, claiming that his disability accommodation was used against him in a grade dispute.
- He filed a pro se lawsuit under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging disability discrimination by Georgetown.
- Skewes-Cox attempted to serve Georgetown by mail but failed to demonstrate service on an authorized corporate agent.
- The district court dismissed his case for improper service and, alternatively, for failure to state a claim; Skewes-Cox appealed the dismissal.
- The appellate court considered only the sufficiency of service and did not reach the merits of the discrimination claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether service of process was properly made | Skewes-Cox claimed he made a good-faith effort | Georgetown argued service was improper as no authorized agent received the summons | Service was not properly effected |
| Whether delivery to correct office sufficed | Addressed papers to Office of General Counsel | Mere delivery to office, not to an authorized agent, is insufficient | Must show delivery to a qualified agent |
| Whether good cause existed for another chance | Cited USPS failure to return receipt, good faith | Georgetown had notified repeatedly of deficiency, and plaintiff was a barred lawyer | No good cause; no additional opportunity granted |
| Whether the court should reach merits | N/A | Lack of proper service bars merits determination | Did not reach merits or standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Mann v. Castiel, 681 F.3d 368 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (plaintiff bears burden of showing effective service to establish personal jurisdiction)
- Bulin v. Stein, 668 A.2d 810 (D.C. 1995) (mail service on a corporation must reach an authorized agent)
- Leichtman v. Koons, 527 A.2d 745 (D.C. 1987) (delivery to an office or regular employee insufficient; service must be on authorized agent)
- Simpkins v. D.C. Gov’t, 108 F.3d 366 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (determining sufficiency of service precedes consideration of Rule 12(b)(6) motion)
- Ruhrgas AG v. Marathon Oil Co., 526 U.S. 574 (1999) (personal jurisdiction can be decided prior to subject-matter jurisdiction)