KIM v. DOE et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION: For the reasons contained herein, the Court will DISMISS this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute and will DENY Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 9 , as moot. See document for details. Signed by Judge Randolph D. Moss on 3/5/2025. (lcrdm2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
SOYEON KIM,
Plaintiff,
v.

Civil Action No. 24-3266 (RDM)

JOHN DOE, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Defendants, John Doe and Anthony Blinken, filed a motion to dismiss this case on
February 3, 2025, arguing that dismissal was required because Plaintiff had failed to state a claim
and because this Court lacked jurisdiction. Dkt. 9. Under this Court’s local rules, a party
opposing a motion must serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition
within 14 days of the date of service of the motion. Local Civil Rule 7(b). In accordance with
that rule, Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss was due on February 17, 2025.
On February 19, 2025, the Court advised Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, that
she had missed that deadline, and the Court gave her an additional week—until February 26,
2025—to file an opposition to the motion to dismiss. See Min. Entry (Feb. 19, 2025). The Court
cautioned Plaintiff that, if she failed to respond “by that date, the Court may (1) treat the motion
as conceded; (2) rule on Defendant’s motion based on Defendant’s arguments alone and without
considering Plaintiff’s arguments; or (3) dismiss Plaintiff’s claims for failure to prosecute.” Id.
Plaintiff failed to file a response to Defendants’ motion to dismiss on or before February
26, 2026, despite the Court’s clear direction and sua sponte extension of time. “District courts
have inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for a plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or

otherwise comply with a court order.” Peterson v. Archstone Communities LLC, 637 F.3d 416,
418 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Court concludes that dismissal for failure to prosecute is warranted
here. Plaintiff failed to respond to Defendants’ motion to dismiss and failed to respond to the
Court’s order warning her that, if she failed to correct that omission in a timely manner, the
Court might dismiss the action for failure to prosecute. Out of an abundance of caution, the
Court has now waited an additional week, yet Plaintiff has disregarded the Court’s order and has
failed even to acknowledge Defendants’ motion to dismiss.
The Court will, accordingly, DISMISS the action without prejudice for failure to
prosecute, and will DENY Defendants’ pending Motion to Dismiss, Dkt. 9, as moot.
A separate order will issue.

/s/ Randolph D. Moss
RANDOLPH D. MOSS
United States District Judge
Dated: March 5, 2025

2