Order | Filed: July 16, 2026
| Entered: July 16, 2026
KYLE v. DC GOVERNMENT et al
Civil Rights: Other | District Of Columbia
Order on Motion to Dismiss/Lack of Jurisdiction
Before the Court is Defendant Events DC's 11 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction and Insufficient Service of Process. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2), (5). Service of process provides the "procedure by which a court...asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served." Omni Cap. Int'l, Ltd. v. Rudolf Wolff & Co., 484 U.S. 97, 104 (1987) (quotation omitted). After a defendant moves to dismiss under 12(b)(5), the plaintiff "has the burden of establishing [the service's] validity." Light v. Wolf, 816 F.2d 746, 751 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (quotation omitted). "[T]o do so, he must demonstrate that the procedure employed satisfied...Rule 4 and any other applicable provision of law." Id. (quotation omitted). Events DC argues that, after several extensions, Plaintiff's effort to serve it on December 22, 2025--two days before the last deadline set by the Court--was inadequate. See ECF No. 11. Plaintiff, for her part, spends most of her opposition defending that attempt. See ECF No. 15. Regardless, Plaintiff also filed proof that she otherwise successfully served Events DC 13 days late, on January 6. See ECF No. 10. In an affidavit, Kyle's process server attests that he went to the Events DC building, and "human resources...sent someone from the legal department to accept the service." Id. at 3. The Court will exercise its discretion to extend her time to effectuate service, nunc pro tunc, to that date. Under Rule 4(m), if a plaintiff shows good cause for an extension, the court "must extend the time for service for an appropriate period." And "[e]ven where the plaintiff does not show good cause, the facts of the case may justify an extension." Hong-Diep Vu v. Phong Ho, 756 F. App'x 881, 882 (11th Cir. 2018). The record here amounts to good cause for this short extension, but on these facts the Court would do so even if that standard was not quite met. First, Plaintiff--a pro se litigant "allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in service of process"--went to great lengths to effect service. Moore v. Agency for Int'l Dev., 994 F.2d 874, 876 (D.C. Cir. 1993). She hired two different process servers; attempted service multiple times by mail and at least four times in person; and submitted filings to document her "continued efforts" to perfect service. ECF No. 12 at 4; see ECF Nos. 4, 10. Second, on this record, it appears she did perfect service, even if it was late (and that brief period included Christmas and New Years). Indeed, Events DC does not argue that this service did not otherwise comply with Rule 4. Third, Events DC does not argue that this late service "prejudiced [it] in any way or had a substantial impact on the merits of the case." Bethel v. Rodriguez, No. CV 20-1940 (RC), 2022 WL 971066, at *4 (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2022). Fourth, judicial economy is hardly served by forcing Plaintiff to file a new case. Thus, consistent with the clear preference of the Federal Rules to resolve disputes on their merits, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiff's time to effect service is EXTENDED, nunc pro tunc, to January 6, 2026. And for that reason, it is further ORDERED that Events DC's 11 Motion is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy J. Kelly on 07/16/2026. (lctjk3)