Mills v. Billington

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: March 30, 2016
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2004-2205
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA __________________________________________________

CHRISTINE MILLS, RUNAKO BALONDEMU, GERALDINE DUNCAN, PRISCILLA IJEOMAH, LAWRENCE PERRY, WILLIAM ROWLAND, DAVID HUBBARD, CLIFTON KNIGHT, SHARON TAYLOR and CHARLES MWALIMU,

Plaintiffs,

v. 1:04-CV-2205 (FJS) JAMES HADLEY BILLINGTON, Librarian, Library of Congress,

Defendant. __________________________________________________

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

ROSE ADVOCATE FOR CIVIL DAVID LOUIS ROSE, ESQ. RIGHTS 4611 Norwood Drive Chevy Chase, Maryland 20815 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

ROSE & ROSE, PC EARLENE WHITE ROSENBERG, ESQ. 1320 19th Street, NW Suite 601 Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

TULLY RINCKEY PLLC JOSHUA N. ROSE, ESQ. 815 Connecticut Avenue, NW Suite 720 Washington, D.C. 20006 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES BEVERLY MARIA RUSSELL, AUSA ATTORNEY JULIA DOUDS, AUSA 555 Fourth Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Defendant SCULLIN, Senior Judge

ORDER

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate issues of liability and issues of

individual relief, see Dkt. No. 261; Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, see Dkt. No. 263; and

Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 269.

After reviewing the entire record in this matter, the parties' submissions and oral arguments,

and the applicable law, and for the reasons stated on the record at oral argument, the Court hereby

ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion to certify a class, see Dkt. No. 263, is DENIED; and the

Court further

ORDERS that Plaintiffs' motion to bifurcate issues of liability and issues of individual

relief, see Dkt. No. 261, is DENIED as moot; and the Court further

ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment,

see Dkt. No. 269, is GRANTED pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7(b) because Plaintiffs did not file a

memorandum of law in opposition to this motion within the prescribed time frame; and, therefore,

the Court deems Defendant's motion conceded;1 and the Court further

1 The Court notes that it contacted Plaintiffs' counsel twice after the filing deadline to inquire as to the reason he had not filed any response to Defendant's motion. Eventually, Plaintiffs' counsel filed a memorandum purporting to respond to Defendant's motion. Not only was this memorandum untimely but it cited no law, nor provided any record-supported facts, to support Plaintiffs' position that the Court should not grant Defendant's motion. In addition, at oral argument, Plaintiffs' counsel provided no valid excuse for his failure to respond to Defendant's motion within the required time frame.

-2- ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close

this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 30, 2016 Syracuse, New York

-3-