Carson v. Sim ( 2009 )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
RODNEY CARSON, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 04-1641 (RWR)
)
WILLIAM SIM et al., )
)
Defendants. )
)
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Plaintiff Rodney Carson brings this action against his
former employer, the Potomac Electric Power Company (“Pepco”) and
its President, William Sim, alleging in his amended complaint
claims of discrimination and retaliation based on race, sex, and
disability in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of
1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., and the Americans with
Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq., intentional
infliction of emotional distress, and breach of contract. Carson
filed a pre-discovery motion for partial summary judgment on
specified “conduct” alleged to be retaliatory (Pl.’s Mot. for
Part. Summ. J. at 1) or on the issue of retaliation. (Pl.’s Mem.
in Supp. of Mot. for Part. Summ. J. (“Pl.’s Mem.”) at 3.) The
defendants move to strike Carson’s motion because the motion
fails to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 and Local
Civil Rule 56.1. (Defs.’ Mot. to Strike at 1.)
-2-
Insofar as Carson’s motion is addressed to specified
conduct, the motion is premature. It was filed before any order
scheduling discovery has been entered in this case, and he does
not show that the defendants otherwise have had any opportunity
to take discovery about specified conduct with which to respond
to the motion. In addition, the defendants’ earlier-filed motion
to dismiss is pending and deserves to be addressed first.
Insofar as Carson’s motion is addressed to the issue of
retaliation, “a party may not file a motion for partial summary
judgment on a fact or an element of a claim. See Beard v. D.C.
Housing Authority, 584 F. Supp. 2d 139, 140 n.1 (D.D.C. 2008)
(denying plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment because
‘“Rule 56 does not contemplate a motion for partial summary
judgment of the sort [plaintiff] has filed[,]” and judgment “may
not be entered as to a fact or an element of a claim”’) (quoting
LaPrade v. Abramson, Civil Action No. 97-10 (RWR), 2006 WL
3469532, at *8 (D.D.C. November 29, 2006)).” Franklin-Mason v.
Penn, Civil Action No. 03-945 (RWR), 2009 WL 1931151, at *2
(D.D.C. July 7, 2009); see 10B Charles Alan Wright et al., Fed.
Practice & Procedure § 2737, at 316 (2d ed. 1998).
Further, Carson failed to fully comply with Local Civil Rule
56.1. Local Civil Rule 56.1 states in relevant part:
Each motion for summary judgment shall be accompanied
by a statement of material facts as to which the moving
party contends there is no genuine issue, which shall
include references to the parts of the record relied on
-3-
to support the statement. . . . Each such motion and
opposition must also contain or be accompanied by a
memorandum of points and authorities and proposed order
as required by LCvR 7(a), (b) and (c).
Carson’s motion does not contain a proposed order, and Carson’s
statement of material facts to which there is no genuine dispute
contains numerous assertions that lack any citation to factual
support in the record. “Where a party fails to comply with Rule
56(e) or to file a proper statement of material facts in dispute
pursuant to a local rule, the circuits are in agreement that the
district court is under no obligation to . . . evaluate the
merits of that party's case.” Jackson v. Finnegan, Henderson,
Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 101 F.3d 145, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1996).
Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion [31] for partial summary
judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED without prejudice, and the
defendants’ motion [32] to strike plaintiff’s motion for partial
summary judgment be, and hereby is, DENIED as moot.
SIGNED this 24st day of September, 2009.
/s/
RICHARD W. ROBERTS
United States District Judge