Stubbs v. Law Office of Hunter C. Piel, LLC

672 F. App'x 3
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit·Decided September 8, 2016·No. No. 15-7149·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

JUDGMENT

Per Curiam

Upon consideration of the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and the parties’ briefs, see Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2), D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j), it is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed December 2, 2015, be affirmed. The appellants’ response to the motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was unresponsive to the arguments raised in the motion, and the district court therefore correctly concluded that the motion to dismiss was conceded pursuant to Local Rule 7(b). See Cohen v. Bd. of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 484 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (holding that dismissal of a complaint as conceded under Local Rule 7(b) is without prejudice to the filing of a renewed complaint).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Stubbs v. Law Office of Hunter C. Piel, LLC, 672 F. App'x 3 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

672 F. App'x 3 (Stubbs v. Law Office of Hunter C. Piel, LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Golden v. Mgmt. & Training Corp.
319 F. Supp. 3d 358 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Duru v. Mitchell
289 F. Supp. 3d 112 (D.C. Circuit, 2018)
Duru v. Mitchell
District of Columbia, 2018
Voacolo v. Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae)
224 F. Supp. 3d 39 (District of Columbia, 2016)