Sup. Ct. R. D.C. 13
COMMENT TO 2023 AMENDMENTS
References to a statement of opposing points and authorities have been deleted consistent with the 2022 amendments to Civil Rule 12-I. The rule also has been amended to allow the court to permit parties to participate remotely, to be consistent with the court's new case management system, and to conform to the general restyling of the civil rules.
COMMENT TO 2019 AMENDMENTS
This rule has been amended and reorganized consistent with the stylistic changes to the civil rules. The rule has also been revised for electronic filing and service.
COMMENT
"In matters involving pleadings, service of process, and timeliness of filings, pro se litigants are not always held to the same standards as are applied to lawyers. Indeed, the trial court has a responsibility to inform pro se litigants of procedural rules and consequences of noncompliance [including] at least minimal notice . . . of pleading requirements. Pro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process and pleadings." Padou v. District of Columbia, 998 A.2d 286, 292 (D.C. 2010) (citations omitted).
A motion captioned as a "Motion for Reconsideration" is considered under subsection (c)(2) as a motion to alter, amend, or for relief from a ruling or sanction and will be treated as such under this Rule. See Fleming v. District of Columbia, 633 A.2d 846, 848 (D.C. 1993); Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union #730, 482 A.2d 801, 804-05 (D.C. 1984).
"The trial court is not free to treat as conceded an unopposed motion for summary judgment" filed under section (d). Milton Props., Inc. v. Newby, 456 A.2d 349, 354 (D.C. 1983). "Even if an unopposed motion for summary judgment is deemed to establish that no genuine issue of material fact exists, the court must still review the pleadings and other papers to determine whether the moving party is legally entitled to judgment." Id.