Plaintiff's Motion to Reinstate Default Judgment, Civil Enforcement, Summary Judgment

PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REINSTATE MOTION FOR A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, CIVIL ENFORCEMENT, AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

REYNOLDS BANKS,

350 50TH St. S, E, Apt. 413

WASHINGTON D.C.,

ZIP: 20019

Plaintiff, pro. Se,

IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

RAYNOLDO BANKS,)CIVIL ACTION NO:

Plaintiff, Pro. Se,)MOTION TO REINSTATE CASE

Vs.) Judge Michael L rankings

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL CLERK'S)Case number 2019 CA000749BOFFICE,)

-38100209550Defendant.

The United States)

The United States Department of Justice)

and Does 1- 10, all-inclusive)

Superior Court civil Clerk's Office

500 Indiana Avenue Washington DC zip code 20001

This motion is brought, taking note of these provisions, according to Rule 7 and Rule 40 of the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Superior Court Rules, the file herein, and the Affidavit of RAYNOLDO BANKS (Plaintiff). Rule 7 (e), MOTION TO REINSTATE, provides that;

By Written Motion. A supplicant can file a written motion, asking the Court to reinstate a petition that was discharged without prejudice. A written motion must be signed under oath and must show good cause to reinstate. On filling of a motion to reinstate, the Clerk must schedule a hearing on the motion.

DATED: ________________, SOUTH CAROLINA, ______________________.

(City) (Date)

________________________________

(Signature of Movant)

RELEVANT FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff filed a Complaint on February 5, 2019. See Compl. Then, on February 19, 2019, the Plaintiff submitted an Affidavit of Service by registered mail to the Defendant. On April 24, 2019, the Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint, arguing that (1) the Defendant is non-sui juris; (2) the complaint is deficient under Rule 4(1), Rule 8, and Rule 9; and (3) the grievance is forbidden by the statute of limitations.

This Court ruled that the Plaintiff had not filed a response to the instant motion to dismiss, and the time to submit one had passed. The Court also ruled that the complainant's affidavit of service was not in compliance with rule 4(1) because it did not (1) specify who accepted service, and (2) whether the recipient was authorized to accept service on behalf of the Perpetrator. It was further ruled that upon inspection of the green receipt attached to the affidavit of service, it was not clear who accepted service or was authorized to do so. It also agreed with the Defendant's contention that it was non-sui juris and could not sue or be sued.

This Court ordered that the Defendant's motion dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint be granted based on the grounds mentioned above. It further ordered that'; (1) the Plaintiff's notice of motion for default judgment civil enforcement and summary judgment be denied; and (2) that all future events scheduled in the case are vacated, and the case is closed.

STATEMENT OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES

In an Order filed on May 28, 2019, this Court denied the Plaintiff's notice of motion for a default judgment, civil enforcement, and summary judgment because the Plaintiff's affidavit of service to the Defendant was not in compliance with Rule 4(1). The Court held that Plaintiff motion did not specify (1) who accepted service, and (2) whether the recipient was approved to receive service on behalf of the Perpetrator. The Court agreed with the Defendant's contention that it is non-sui juris, and therefore, cannot sue or be sued. It further agreed that the Plaintiff had not filed a response to the instant motion to dismiss, and the time to file one had passed.

Plaintiff takes note of the provisions of Rule 40(a)(3), that, "unless the court requests, no answer to a petition for panel rehearing is permitted. But ordinarily, rehearing will not be granted in the absence of such a request." The Plaintiff further takes note that the amendment of Rule 15(d) provides the Court with a comprehensive will that allows supplemental pleading. Moreover, the Court has the authority to give a supplemental pleading even when the initial pleading is flawed.

Interpretation of Rule 15(c) gives provision to correct a misdescription or an inaccuracy of the Defendant as grounds to "relate to the time of the initial pleading."

Rule 15(d) amendment does not concern with issues such as the comparativeness of the limitation statute to the supplemental pleading, the doctrine of laches operation, or the obtainability of alternative defenses. It is thus indicated under the amendments that all the questions raised will be relevant to decision-making according to the principles applied to pleadings generally. A DEFAULT JUDGEMENT

This action was initially brought to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and declaratory relief in connection with the Plaintiff's account's mismanagement. The mismanagement occurred when the fiduciary failed to observe the laws and guidelines when administering financial resources for the Plaintiff. This involved negligence and neglect on account of the liable party. Taking into consideration that legal remedies for mismanagement of funds are purposed to be proportionate to the type of conduct at issue, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the court award the payment of damages by defendants for financial losses related to the mismanagement of Plaintiff's funds.

On December 30, 2013, the Plaintiff returned to the Superior Court, and the Plaintiff received the response from the Court that the Court had no record of a judgment for the Plaintiff under filing numbers "2950-04 A&B or 2004-2950 A&B". The Plaintiff seeks to enforce the remainder of the judgment on the basis that the Superior Court clerk breached the fiduciary duty to hold the Plaintiff's account during the Plaintiff's incarceration.

Plaintiff has made a previous motion for this relief, which the Defendant opposed and rejected on the grounds of a technicality. It is respectfully requested that the Court grants the revised Plaintiff's motion for default of judgment and award any other and additional relief as the Court considers fair and appropriate.

CIVIL ENFORCEMENT

Plaintiff is empowered to bring a civil action because Plaintiff is a beneficiary of personal accounts that were mismanaged by the defendants. The plaintiff commands that in the above-entitled civil action, Plaintiff is a beneficiary. To that end, the Plaintiff respectfully pleads with the Court to allow a reasonable attorney's fee and action costs. In addition to this, the Plaintiff requests that the court award plaintiff the unpaid contributions, interest on the unpaid contributions, an amount equal to the greater of - interests over 20 percent, reasonable attorney's fees and costs of the action, to be paid by the Defendant, and such other legal or equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Plaintiff contends that a plaintiff is unjustly convicted of and subsequently imprisoned for a criminal offense and may present a claim for damages against the District of Columbia. In this case, the Plaintiff has been incarcerated for two (2) years, and thus the Plaintiff is entitled to present a claim according to DC 2-421.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

This affidavit supporting the motion for summary judgment was made on Plaintiff's individual and set out particulars that would be permissible in evidence. It shows that the Defendant is adept enough to testify on the matters stated.

First Claim: Negligence and Breach of Duty

The Plaintiff hereby alleges that the Superior Court clerk (hereinafter referred to as the Defendant) was negligent and has breached the duty of not a having a proper record of judgment for the Plaintiff under the filing numbers "2950-04 A&B or 2004 - 2950 A&B" That the Defendant was under a duty to take care of the duties entrusted upon the Defendant, and the Defendant should have the proper record of the judgment of the Plaintiff under Filing numbers "2950-04 A&B or 2004-2950 A&B". The Defendant was under a duty to exercise reasonable care, skill, and diligence in maintaining the record of the Court. Lack of proper and reasonable care, skill, and diligence may lead to negligence by the Superior Court's Defendant and thus the breach of duty.

Second Claim: Declaratory Relief

The Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations of as though fully set forth herein. The Plaintiff's action has risen to recover the damages due to the negligent act of the Defendant of the Superior Court.

Third Claim: Breach of Fiduciary Duty

Superior Court awarded the Plaintiff "a sum of two eternities of money total," disbursed $36,000 in funds on the award's day and an additional $603,000 in payments. The Plaintiff put this amount in the fiduciary account of the Clerk of the Superior Court (Defendant), having a fiduciary duty obliges the trustee to manage trust assets with a certain amount of competence, along with honesty and integrity. This action alleging mismanagement or "malfeasance" alleges that the trustee failed to correctly record the trust assets' evidence. That there was a breach of the fiduciary duty of the Superior Court clerk's part, and the Plaintiff has been unjustly deprived of the monetary award.

Plaintiff prays for this reinstatement because:

Plaintiff files a written motion asking the Court to reinstate the petition that was dismissed without prejudice. The written motion is signed under oath and shows good cause to reinstate. Plaintiff prays that the Clerk schedules a hearing on the motion.

Plaintiff prays that this Court allows a response to be filed against the motion to dismiss through its express orders. Plaintiff prays that the Court allows the Plaintiff to make sufficient adjustments to an affidavit of service to comply with rule 4(1), so that (1) specifies who accepted service, and (2) clarifies whether the recipient was permitted to undertake service on behalf of the Defendant.

Plaintiff prays that this Court re-inspects the receipts attached to the affidavit of service, to determine clarity on who accepted service, or whether that person was authorized to do so. Plaintiff prays that this Court reconsiders its conclusion that the Defendant is non-sui juris and cannot sue or be sued.

This Court is aware of the Plaintiff's complaint against the Defendant, filed on February 5, 2019, pointing out negligence and breach of fiduciary duty arising from the Defendant's failure to maintain a monetary record judgment in the Plaintiff's favor.

This Court is aware of the Plaintiff's submission that he was incarcerated for two years and secured a "no lock-up order" on October 15, 2005. The Court is also in receipt of the Plaintiff's submission that the Defendant failed to maintain a record of the judgment and that instant action was needed.

Plaintiff prays that a considerable amount of time is allocated as an extension for the service process. The Court grants an extension before the 90-day expiry period regarding the collection of liquidated debt as provided under Rule 4(m).

DATED: _______________________, ____________________________________.

RAYNOLDO BANKS

Plaintiff Pro Se

Conclusion

The Plaintiff seeks to enforce the remainder of the judgment on the basis that the Clerk of the Superior Court breached the fiduciary duty to hold the Plaintiff's account during incarceration. The summons and complaint are in the form prescribed by statute and contain all particulars required by law. The summonses comply with the law's requirements, contain the required notice in boldface type, and are in the format required by statute. According to the certificate of service, the summons was served together with the complainant. The Plaintiff is empowered to bring a civil action because the Plaintiff is a beneficiary of personal accounts mismanaged by the defendants.

Plaintiff takes note of the provisions of Rule 40(a)(3) that, "unless the court requests, no answer to a...