These are the summons they sent

After waiting since filing my new complaint on 8/9/2014 for over a month to receive the summons, they finally issued an order on 9/16/2014 for issuing the summons and giving 120 days from the issuance date to serve those summons. The mail man appeared to have come yesterday and left a note. So I took the note to the post office to receive the long waited for package. But first, the guy in the post office made me sign and print my name on a paper then sign and print my name on the screen where you sign for credit card payments then write my street address on that same machine before he gave me the package. I did not know why that was required. Anyway,when I opened the package I found that there are six of what are supposed to be summons with only one of them having the court's seal. That may give a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) (Insufficient Process) because summons are required to have the court's seal according to FRCP Rule 4(a)(1)(G) requiring that summons should "bear the court's seal". In addition none of the summons was addressed to any of the defendants which could be used as a ground for dismissal according to FRCP Rule 12 b (4) and Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requiring that summons should "be directed to the defendant". Instead, what was there in the "To" section was the instruction "(Defendant's name and address)" which should have been replaced with the actual name and address of the defendant.Also, although Rule 4(a)(1)(B) requires that summons "be signed by the clerk" I am not sure that any wet signature is there.


[(Added 9/29/2014) The last Rule 4(a)(1)(B) above should have been Rule 4(a)(1)(F)]