SNYDER v. CASTRO, 15-0568 (ESH). (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Columbia
Number: infdco20150709b32
Visitors: 12
Filed: Jul. 08, 2015
Latest Update: Jul. 08, 2015
Summary: ORDER ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE , District Judge . On June 12, 2015, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as moot. (Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss For Mootness, June 12, 2015 [ECF No. 18].) Plaintiffs' response to this motion was due on or before June 29, 2015, but plaintiffs have neither responded nor sought an extension of time in which to respond. The Local Rules for this Court provide that if a party fails to file
Summary: ORDER ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE , District Judge . On June 12, 2015, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as moot. (Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss For Mootness, June 12, 2015 [ECF No. 18].) Plaintiffs' response to this motion was due on or before June 29, 2015, but plaintiffs have neither responded nor sought an extension of time in which to respond. The Local Rules for this Court provide that if a party fails to file ..
More
ORDER
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE, District Judge.
On June 12, 2015, defendant filed a motion pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss plaintiff's complaint as moot. (Def.'s Mot. To Dismiss For Mootness, June 12, 2015 [ECF No. 18].) Plaintiffs' response to this motion was due on or before June 29, 2015, but plaintiffs have neither responded nor sought an extension of time in which to respond. The Local Rules for this Court provide that if a party fails to file an opposition to a motion "within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded." LCvR 7(b); see Fox v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 389 F.3d 1291, 1295 (D.C. Cir. 2004) ("[W]here the district court relies on the absence of a response as a basis for treating the motion as conceded, we honor its enforcement of the rule." (quoting Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577 (D.C. Cir.1997))). Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that defendant's Motion to Dismiss [ECF No. 18] is GRANTED as conceded; and it is further
ORDERED that the above-captioned matter is DISMISSED.
Source: Leagle
