Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 4
COMMENT TO 2024 AMENDMENTS
New subsection (c)(7) implements the applicable provisions of new Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 87, which was adopted in 2023. Subsection (g) has been amended consistent with the general restyling of the Superior Court rules.
COMMENT TO 2021 AMENDMENTS
New subsection (e)(3) permits the court to authorize an alternative means of service if the serving party is unable to accomplish service using a traditional method and if the alternative method is reasonably calculated to give actual notice to the party being served. Subsection (e)(4) permits the court to authorize posting on the court's website when a plaintiff is unable to pay the cost of publication.
COMMENT TO 2017 AMENDMENTS
Rule 4 differs substantially from Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4, as amended in 2007 and 2015. The differences include: 1) the addition of language referring to the "Initial Order, any addendum to that order, and any other order directed by the court to the parties at the time of filing" wherever the rule discusses service of the summons and complaint; 2) the substitution of "District of Columbia" for "the state where the district court is located" 3) the substitution of "District of Columbia" for "federal" and "state" 4) the substitution of "applicable law" and "applicable statute" for "federal law" and "federal statute" 5) the addition of sections (a)(3), (c)(4)-(6), (j)(3), and (l)(1)(A)-(B); 6) revising sections (b) and (m) to reflect Superior Court practice; 7) the insertion of additional language at the end of subsection (c)(3), which limits the circumstances when a U.S. marshal or deputy marshal or specially appointed process server may be used; and 8) the deletion of section (k)(2) as inapplicable to local practice.
Subsection (c)(5) retains the language of former subsection (c)(4), which dealt with sending the defendant a request for an acknowledgment of service via first-class mail. However, the deadline to return the acknowledgment of service has been changed from 20 days to 21 days based on the time-calculation amendments to Rule 6. Additionally, a provision has been added that allows a party to recover the reasonable expenses, including attorney's fees, for filing a motion to collect the costs of service incurred after the defendant failed to acknowledge service.
The provisions governing service on the District of Columbia or a District of Columbia agency, officer, or employee were moved to subsection (j)(3) so that subsections (j)(1)-(2) would align with the federal rule. Subsection (j)(3) was also amended to specify how service should be made when an officer or employee is sued in their individual capacity for something connected to their duties. Although subsection (j)(1) was omitted in prior versions of Rule 4, it has now been adopted because there are instances where foreign states may be sued in the District of Columbia. See 28 U.S.C. § 1608.
Section (m) was amended to include language previously found in section (o). Accordingly, section (o) has been deleted entirely.
In order to dispose of cases within the time limits set by the Chief Judge in an administrative order, the Superior Court rule retains the 60-day service provision in section (m). That 60-day provision permits cases to proceed to an initial hearing within 90-120 days of filing the complaint. Exceptions to that 60-day service provision include the collection and subrogation cases defined in Rule 40 -III, cases filed under D.C. Code § 47-1370 (2015 Repl.) (see section (m)(1)(B)(i)), cases where an order of publication has been issued, and any other exceptions set forth in these rules or provided by statute, treaty (see section (f)), or other international law.
Finally, subsection (m)(4) includes the 2015 amendment to the federal rule, which clarified that the reference to Rule 4 in Rule 71.1(d)(3)(A) did not include Rule 4(m). Dismissal of actions condemning real or personal property is governed by Rule 71.1 and is not affected by Rule 4(m).
COMMENT
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4 was substantially revised and reorganized effective December 1, 1993. In order to maintain uniformity with the Federal Rule to the maximum extent feasible, Superior Court Rule of Civil Procedure 4 has been similarly revised and reorganized to match the structure and substance of the new Federal Rule in large part. Although most provisions of new Superior Court Rule 4 are identical to those of new Federal Rule 4, there are a few variations. Throughout the rule reference is made to the initial order. This refers to the order setting the initial scheduling conference that is given to plaintiffs at the time of their filing the summons and complaint. Many of the other variations result from the obvious inapplicability of the federal provisions and thus require no explanation. A few of the variations merit comment.
Subdivision (a) of this rule is virtually identical to new Federal Rule 4(a) except for the final sentence, which has been added to preserve the substance of a useful provision, contained in former SCR-Civil 4(b), regarding the form of summons or notice to be used when service is made outside the District of Columbia or is based on the seizure of property within the District.
In subdivision (b), the prior Superior Court provision concerning issuance of the summons has been retained, in lieu of the new federal rule provision. The prior Superior Court provision is well known to the Clerk's Office and the Bar and has worked well.
In subdivision (c), a sentence has been added to paragraph (2) to retain the language, contained in former SCR-Civil 4(c)(2)(B), regarding the limited circumstances in which service by a U.S. marshal, deputy marshal, or specially appointed process server is permitted.
Paragraph 3 has been added to subdivision (c) to preserve the long-standing Superior Court practice of allowing service of a summons, complaint and initial order by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested. This practice has been extensively used for years in this Court with great success and little difficulty. Paragraph 4 retains the language of former SCR-Civil 4(c)(2)(C) and (D) which deal with sending the defendant, via first-class mail, a request for an acknowledgment of service.
A paragraph (5) has been added to subdivision (c) to retain the provision of former SCR-Civil 4(c) allowing the plaintiff to attempt service through alternative means, either concurrently or successively.
In subdivision (j), paragraph 1 of the Federal Rule dealing with service upon a foreign national has been deleted as inapplicable to Superior Court jurisdiction. In its place has been inserted the provisions, previously contained in SCR-Civil 4(d)(4), governing service on the District of Columbia or an officer of [or] agency thereof.
In subdivision (1), there has been inserted language describing the information required in affidavits of personal service and mail service. These provisions were previously contained in SCR-Civil 4(g).
Finally, Federal Rule 4(m), which allows 120 days to effect service or obtain a waiver thereof, has been replaced entirely with the language previously contained in Superior Court Rule 4(j). That provision allowed 60 days for effecting service so that the case could proceed to an Initial Scheduling Conference within 90-120 days of filing the complaint (except in cases where an order of publication has been issued) and a disposition within the time limits recommended by the American Bar Association (i.e., one year in 90% of cases and two years in 100% of cases). The rule has an additional paragraph (o) allowing greater time for service of the summons in cases filed under D.C. Code § 47-1370.