MANG v. MUNICIPAL SECURITIES RULEMAKING BOARD
MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Tanya S. Chutkan on 11/14/2023. (psu1)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
Civil Action No. 23-cv-02283 (TSC)
Defendant removed this pro se case from the Superior Court of the District of
Columbia, asserting federal question jurisdiction. See Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.
Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion will be
Plaintiff was informed of his obligations to respond to Defendant’s motion by
September 14, 2023, and the consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond. See Aug.
24, 2023 Order, ECF No. 11. On September 11, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s
motion to extend the deadline to October 13, 2023, but Plaintiff filed nothing by that
date. Thus, on October 19, 2023, Defendant filed with the court and served on Plaintiff a
notice requesting that its “motion be treated as conceded and that the relief sought therein
be granted.” Not. of Pl.’s Failure to Oppose Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and Request for
Entry of Order, ECF No. 14. Because Plaintiff still has not filed an opposition or
requested another extension of time, the court considers Defendant’s grounds for
dismissal to be conceded. See Aug. 24, 2023 Order (highlighting that “the court may
treat as conceded any [unopposed] arguments a defendant has advanced in support of its
The relevant factual allegations are as follows. From February 2020 to July 2020,
Defendant employed Plaintiff as a law clerk. Plaintiff worked remotely and “understood
that [Defendant] could monitor his electronic activities while his [personal] device was
connected to the company network.” Def.’s Mem., ECF No. 5-2 at 1-2. On July 13,
2020, while on a Zoom call with his therapist, Plaintiff received an alert that he was
connected to Defendant’s network, “which prompted him to disconnect.” Id. at 2.
Plaintiff alleges unlawful eavesdropping by Defendant and demands damages. He
raises claims “sounding in tort, contract, and statute,” Def.’s Mem. at 3, the latter
including a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C.
§§ 2703 et seq. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-3 (Tenth Cause of Action). By his silence,
Plaintiff concedes that (1) the federal claim is barred by the ECPA’s two-year statute of
limitations, Def.’s Mem. at 16, and (2) the non-federal claims are barred by the D.C.
Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), id. at 6-7. See Vanzant v. Washington Metro. Area
Transit Auth., 557 F. Supp. 2d 113, 117 (D.D.C. 2008) (“The WCA is the exclusive
remedy for a workplace injury.”) (citing D.C. Code § 32-1504(a)). Therefore, this case
will be dismissed, albeit without prejudice. A corresponding order will issue separately.
Date: November 14, 2023
Tanya S. Chutkan
TANYA S. CHUTKAN
United States District Judge
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?