VEGA v. GRAY et al

Filing 6

MEMORANDUM ORDER granting defendants' motion 4 to dismiss the DCHRA claim in Count One and Counts Two through Seven of the plaintiff's complaint. Signed by Judge Richard W. Roberts on 09/07/2012. (DCL)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_____________________________
)
LUCIA VEGA,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) Civil Action No. 11-2122 (RWR)
)
VINCENT C. GRAY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Lucia Vega, a former school principal with the
District of Columbia Public School system (“DCPS”) from 2003
through 2008, filed a seven-count complaint against the Mayor of
the District of Columbia and the DCPS alleging discrimination
based on national origin in violation of the District of Columbia
Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01, et seq.,
discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., and
discrimination based on age in violation of the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (Count One);
discriminatory interference with Vega’s contractual rights in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count Two); common law claims of
wrongful discharge, defamation, business defamation, and civil
conspiracy (Counts Three, Four, and Five); violation of ERISA
(Count Six); and breach of her employment contract (Count Seven),
arising out of Vega’s resignation from the DCPS in June 2008.

-2The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the portion of
Count One alleging a violation of the DCHRA and Counts Two
through Seven.
Local Civil Rule 7(b) provides that
Within 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.
Local Civil Rule 7(b).

“[I]t is well settled that a plaintiff's

failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to
grant the motion as conceded.”

Hoffman v. Dist. 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)).

The plaintiff has not

responded to the defendants’ motion, so the motion will be deemed
conceded.

It is hereby

ORDERED that the defendants’ motion [4] to dismiss the DCHRA
claim in Count One and Counts Two through Seven in their entirety
be, and hereby is, GRANTED.
SIGNED this 7th day of September, 2012.

/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge