Woolridge v. Potomac College LLC

District of Columbia

Woolridge v. Potomac College LLC

919 F. Supp. 2d 7, 2013 WL 297812, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10557

CourtDistrict Court, District of Columbia

DecidedJanuary 25, 2013

DocketCivil Action No. 2012-0539

StatusPublished

This text of 919 F. Supp. 2d 7 (Woolridge v. Potomac College LLC) 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.

Bluebook

Woolridge v. Potomac College LLC, 919 F. Supp. 2d 7, 2013 WL 297812, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10557 (D.D.C. 2013).

Pincite

Opinion

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Carl Woolridge, a former employee of Potomac College LLC, filed a five-count complaint against Potomac College LLC, the president and CEO of Potomac College LLC, Jim Otten, and Woolridge’s former supervisor, Chet White, alleging race and age discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 *8 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 1 and common law claims of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, and false light. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Woolridge’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

Local Civil Rule 7(b) provides that

[wjithin 14 days of the date of service ..., an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.

LCvR 7(b). “[I]t is well settled that a plaintiffs failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to grant the motion as conceded.” Hoffman v. District of Columbia, 681 F.Supp.2d 86, 94 (D.D.C.2010) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C.Cir.2004) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss)).

Woolridge did not respond to the defendants’ motion. On January 3, 2013, an order was issued requiring Woolridge to show cause by January 24, 2013 why the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted as conceded. The plaintiff has failed to file a response to the January 3 Order to Show Cause, and has still not responded to the defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion will be deemed conceded and it will be granted.

A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

1

. Woolridge does not assert that he is entitled to relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621.

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

MEMORANDUM OPINION

RICHARD W. ROBERTS, District Judge.

Plaintiff Carl Woolridge, a former employee of Potomac College LLC, filed a five-count complaint against Potomac College LLC, the president and CEO of Potomac College LLC, Jim Otten, and Woolridge’s former supervisor, Chet White, alleging race and age discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VII”), 42 *8 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., 1 and common law claims of assault, intentional infliction of emotional distress, retaliation, and false light. The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss Woolridge’s complaint for failure to state a claim.

Local Civil Rule 7(b) provides that

[wjithin 14 days of the date of service ..., an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.

LCvR 7(b). “[I]t is well settled that a plaintiffs failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to grant the motion as conceded.” Hoffman v. District of Columbia, 681 F.Supp.2d 86, 94 (D.D.C.2010) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C.Cir.2004) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the defendant’s motion to dismiss)).

Woolridge did not respond to the defendants’ motion. On January 3, 2013, an order was issued requiring Woolridge to show cause by January 24, 2013 why the defendants’ motion to dismiss should not be granted as conceded. The plaintiff has failed to file a response to the January 3 Order to Show Cause, and has still not responded to the defendants’ motion. Accordingly, the defendants’ motion will be deemed conceded and it will be granted.

A final order accompanies this memorandum opinion.

1

. Woolridge does not assert that he is entitled to relief under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

919 F. Supp. 2d 7, 2013 WL 297812, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10557, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/woolridge-v-potomac-college-llc-dcd-2013.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack