Whenever these rules require or allow a party to give security, and security is given with one or more security providers, each provider submits to the court’s jurisdiction and irrevocably appoints the court clerk as its agent for receiving service of any papers that affect its liability on the security. The security provider’s liability may be enforced on motion without an independent action. The motion and any notice that the court orders may be served on the court clerk, who must promptly send a copy of each to every security provider whose address is known.
Rule 65.1.Proceedings Against a Security Provider
Group VIII: Provisional and Final Remedies · Last amended 2019 · Last verified July 14, 2026
In one sentenceRule 65.1 lets a court enforce a security provider's liability on a bond or other security by motion alone, because posting security under these rules automatically submits the provider to the court's jurisdiction and makes the clerk its agent for service.
Full Text of Rule 65.1
Comments
2019 Amendments:
This rule was amended consistent with the 2018 amendments to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1. It reflects the amendments to Rule 62, which permits stay of a judgment “by a bond or other security.”
2017 Amendments:
This rule is identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1, as amended in 2007, except that it maintains one local distinction—the omission of a reference to the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset Forfeiture Actions.
Comment:
Identical to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.1 except for the deletion therefrom of the inapplicable reference to Supplemental Rules for Admiralty Cases in the federal District Courts.
Plain-English Summary
Litigation regularly calls for a party to post security — a bond guaranteeing payment of costs and damages if a preliminary injunction or TRO turns out to be wrongful, for instance. When that security comes through one or more security providers, Rule 65.1 makes each provider submit to the court's jurisdiction the moment it provides the security, and each provider irrevocably appoints the court clerk as its agent for receiving any papers affecting its liability on that security.
That submission has a practical payoff: the provider's liability can be enforced on motion, without anyone needing to file a separate lawsuit against the surety. The motion, along with any notice the court orders, may be served on the clerk, who must then promptly send a copy to every security provider whose address is known. The rule turns what could be a second round of litigation into a single motion in the existing case.
The 2019 amendment ties this rule to Rule 62's provision allowing a stay of judgment secured “by a bond or other security” — when a security provider backs a stay bond under Rule 62, the same streamlined enforcement mechanism in Rule 65.1 applies.
Frequently Asked Questions
What happens when a party posts a bond through a security provider under these rules?
Rule 65.1 provides that the security provider submits to the court's jurisdiction and irrevocably appoints the court clerk as its agent for receiving papers that affect its liability on the security.
Can the court hold a security provider liable without a separate lawsuit?
Yes. Rule 65.1 states that the security provider's liability may be enforced on motion, without the need for an independent action against the provider.
How is a security provider notified of a motion seeking to enforce its liability?
The motion and any court-ordered notice may be served on the court clerk, who must promptly send a copy to every security provider whose address is known.
Does Rule 65.1 apply to a bond posted to stay enforcement of a judgment?
The 2019 amendment notes this rule reflects the amendments to Rule 62, which allows a stay of judgment secured by a bond or other security, so a provider backing that kind of security is covered as well.
Does a security provider need to separately agree to the court's jurisdiction?
No. Under Rule 65.1, providing the security itself is what submits the provider to the court's jurisdiction — there is no additional consent step required.
Source & verification. Rule text and official Comments are
reproduced verbatim from the District of Columbia Superior Court Rules of Civil
Procedure, adopted by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. Last verified July 14, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: dc surety bond liability ruleenforcing bond against security provider dcmotion against surety dc superior courtsecurity provider submits to court jurisdiction dcclerk agent for service on surety dc