Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

MILLS v. BILLINGTON, 1:04-CV-2205 (FJS). (2016)

Court: District Court, D. Columbia Number: infdco20160331d86 Visitors: 23
Filed: Mar. 30, 2016
Latest Update: Mar. 30, 2016
Summary: ORDER FREDERICK J. SCULLIN, Jr. , Senior District Judge . 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 sta
More

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

ORDERS that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment in favor of Defendant and close this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

FootNotes


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.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer