UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
KAREN RUNNYMEDE-PIPER,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 12-00930 (CKK)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM OPINION
(July 6, 2012)
Plaintiff commenced this action on March 27, 2012 in the Superior Court of the District
of Columbia against four sets of defendants: (1) the District of Columbia, the District of
Columbia Child and Family Services Agency, and the District of Columbia Metropolitan Police
(the “District Defendants”); (2) Washington Hospital Center Corporation, Medstar Health Inc.,
Leslie Goddard, Felicia Wright, Rosalynn Ofei, Martin Chin, Shanda M. Moore, and S.
Holloman (the “WHC Defendants”); (3) Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of the Mid-Atlantic
States, Inc., David Nagle, and Kathleen Logan (the “Kaiser Defendants”); and (4) John and Jane
Does 1 through 10 (the “Doe Defendants”). The Kaiser Defendants removed the action to this
Court on June 4, 2012, see Notice of Removal, ECF No. [1], whereupon the District Defendants
and the WHC Defendants filed notices of consent to removal, see Notice of Consent to Removal,
ECF No. [3]; Notice of Consent to Removal, ECF No. [7]. Plaintiff’s deadline to seek remand
on the basis of any defect other than lack of subject matter jurisdiction expired on July 5, 2012.
See 28 U.S.C. § 1447.
On May 25, 2012, while this action was still before the Superior Court, the District
Defendants filed a [1-1] Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment
(“Motion to Dismiss”). Even assuming, arguendo, that Plaintiff’s time to file an opposition was
reset upon removal to this Court on June 4, 2012, her deadline expired on June 21, 2012.
Furthermore, on June 11, 2012, the WHC Defendants filed a [4] Motion to Dismiss and the
Kaiser Defendants filed a [5] Motion to Dismiss of their own. Plaintiff’s deadline to file an
opposition to both these motions expired on June 28, 2012. The public docket reflects that
Plaintiff, who is represented by counsel, did not file a timely opposition to any of these motions.
When a party fails to file a timely opposition, “the Court may treat the motion as
conceded.” LCvR 7(b); see also Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571, 577
(D.C. Cir. 1997) (“[T]he district court [may] rel[y] on the absence of a response as a basis for
treating a motion as conceded.”). In an exercise of its discretion, the Court shall treat all three
motions as conceded and shall dismiss the District Defendants, the WHC Defendants, and the
Kaiser Defendants from this case. In addition, because aspects of the three motions contend that
Plaintiff’s case suffers from defects that are fatal to the action in its entirety regardless of the
named defendant, see, e.g., Mem. of Law in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss by WHC Defs., ECF No.
[4], at 5, the Court shall also dismiss Plaintiff’s claims against the Doe Defendants. Finally, in a
further exercise of its discretion, the Court shall dismiss the action without prejudice, in part
because the three motions raise a number of arguments going to this Court’s jurisdiction. See,
e.g., Mem. of P. & A. in Supp. of Kaiser Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss, ECF No. [5-1], at 4, 17-18.
Date: July 6, 2012 _____/s/______________________
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY
United States District Judge
2