Peoples v. Potter
This text of Peoples v. Potter (Peoples v. Potter) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, District of Columbia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
,-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
CLARENCE PEOPLES, et aI., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. ) Civ. Action No. 09-27 (RJL) ) JOHN E. POTTER, et aI., ) ) Defendants. )r/z-- MEMORANDUM ORDER (October +,2009) [# 12]
Plaintiff, Clarence Peoples, I brought this action against defendants, John Potter and
Alexander Lazaroff, seeking damages for alleged race-based employment discrimination.
Presently before the Court is defendants' Motion to Dismiss claiming that Peoples has failed
to exhaust his administrative remedies. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS
defendants' motion.
Local Rule of Civil Procedure 7(b) provides that an opposing party has 11 days to file
a memorandum in opposition to the motion and if such party fails to do so, the court may
treat the motion as conceded. LCvR. 7(b). This rule is a "docket-management tool that
facilitates efficient and effective resolution of motions by requiring the prompt joining of
issues." Fox v. American Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1294 (D.C. Cir. 2004). In Fox, the
D.C. Circuit affirmed the District Court's holding that "because the plaintiffs failed to
I A second plaintiff, Hallad Little, stipulated to dismissal of his case with prejudice on
April 10, 2009 [# 11]. respond to the defendant's ... motion, the court treats the motion as conceded and grants the
motion." Id. (citations omitted). Whether to treat the motion as conceded under Local Rule
of Civil Procedure 7(b) is highly discretionary; and our Circuit Court has noted that "where
the district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as
conceded, [the D.C. Circuit will] honor its enforcement of the rule." Twelve John Does v.
District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir. 1997).
In light of the fact that plaintiff failed to file an opposition to defendants' motion to
dismiss, even when the Court issued an Order requiring the plaintiff to do so or face the
consequences of it being treated as conceded, [# 13], the Court will treat defendants' motion
as conceded. LCvR 7(b). Therefore, in light of the plaintiffs concession and based on a
review of the pleadings, the relevant law cited therein, and the record, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendants' Motion to Dismiss [# 12] is GRANTED, and it is further
ORDERED that judgment be entered in favor of the defendants. This is a final
appealable Order.
SO ORDERED.
United States District Judge
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Peoples v. Potter, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/peoples-v-potter-dcd-2009.