BLACKWELL v. SECTEK, INC.
Filing
10
ORDER. See text of Order for details. Signed by Judge John D. Bates on 1/27/2014. (lcjdb2)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
EUGENE B. BLACKWELL,
Plaintiff,
v.
Civil Action No. 13-1536 (JDB)
SECTEK, INC.,
Defendant.
ORDER
Plaintiff Eugene Blackwell, proceeding pro se, brought this suit against his employer,
SecTek, Inc. Blackwell originally filed his complaint in D.C. Superior Court, and SecTek timely
removed the action to this Court under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, & 1446. Read broadly,
Blackwell’s complaint asserts violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Age
Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (“ADEA”), and the Americans with Disabilities Act
of 1990 (“ADA”).
Pointing to the thinness of Blackwell’s complaint, SecTek moved to dismiss under Rule
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss [ECF No. 6]. Blackwell did not
respond by filing a memorandum in opposition; instead, he filed a “motion to submit exhibits,”
and this Court granted leave to file that motion.1 See Pl.’s Mot. to Submit Exs. [ECF No. 7].
SecTek filed a motion seeking to strike the exhibits and a reply brief in support of its motion to
dismiss. Def.’s Mot. to Strike [ECF No. 8]; Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Its Mot. to Dismiss [ECF
No. 9] (“Def.’s Reply”).
1
Moreover, Blackwell filed that motion after the deadline for responding to SecTek’s motion to dismiss
came and went. See Local Civil Rule 7(b).
1
The Court will construe Blackwell’s pro se “motion to submit exhibits” as a motion to
file an amended complaint with the exhibits in the motion attached to his original complaint. See
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94, 127 (2007) (noting that pro se complaints are to be
“liberally construed”). Because it was filed just a few days after the deadline passed to amend as
a matter of course under Federal Civil Rule 15(a)(1)(B), the Court will exercise its discretion and
grant leave to amend in this case; after all, such leave “should [be] freely give[n] when justice so
requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Accordingly, the Court will deny SecTek’s [8] motion to
strike. Although SecTek argues that the complaint, “with or without the proposed exhibits, lacks
sufficient factual allegations” to survive a motion to dismiss, the Court will deny [6] SecTek’s
motion to dismiss without prejudice to allow SecTek an opportunity to more fully respond to the
amended complaint. Def.’s Reply [ECF No. 9] 3.
In Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988), the D.C. Circuit held that a district
court must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a
dispositive motion. “That notice . . . should include an explanation that the failure to respond . . .
may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case.” Id. at 509. In
addition, the Court’s local rules state that “[w]ithin 14 days of the date of service or at such other
time as the court may direct, an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and
authorities in opposition to the motion [or] the court may treat the motion as conceded.” Local
Civil Rule 7(b). Should SecTek respond to the filing of Blackwell’s amended complaint with a
renewed motion to dismiss, Blackwell is hereby advised that if he does not respond within 14
days after he is served with such a motion, the Court will treat the motion as conceded and may
summarily dismiss the complaint against SecTek or enter judgment in its favor.
Accordingly, it is hereby
2
ORDERED that [7] plaintiff’s motion to submit exhibits is construed as a motion for
leave to file an amended complaint; it is further
ORDERED that [7] plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint is
GRANTED; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk shall promptly file plaintiff’s original complaint, combined
with the exhibits attached to [7] plaintiff’s motion to submit exhibits, as plaintiff’s amended
complaint; it is further
ORDERED that [6] defendant’s motion to dismiss is DENIED WITHOUT
PREJUDICE; it is further
ORDERED that [8] defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendant shall file its answer or otherwise respond to plaintiff’s
amended complaint by not later than February 14, 2014.
SO ORDERED.
/s/
JOHN D. BATES
United States District Judge
Dated: January 27, 2013
3
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?