Dickerson v. District of Columbia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
_________________________________________
)
KENNETH DICKERSON, et al., )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2213 (PLF)
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )
)
Defendants. )
_________________________________________ )
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
It has come to the Court’s attention that at an earlier stage in this litigation, when
this case was before now-Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, the District had raised an issue
whether some of the plaintiffs’ state law claims might be foreclosed by their alleged failure to
follow grievance procedures established by District of Columbia labor law. The District made
this argument in its motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 5 at 9-14.
The District’s motion was denied as moot in a Memorandum Order that also granted the
plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dickerson v. Dist. of Columbia, 806 F.
Supp. 2d 116, 121 (2011).
In that Memorandum Order, Judge Roberts deemed it “premature to conclude
from this briefing that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.” Id. The
District has not raised this argument in its briefing on the currently pending motion to dismiss the
Third Amended Complaint, although it has noted that “it does not waive such a defense, and
reserves the right to raise it in a subsequent motion.” See Reply [Dkt. No. 30] at 2 n.1.
The Court notes that these arguments, if correct, could deprive the Court of
subject matter jurisdiction over at least some of the plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Robinson v.
Dist. of Columbia, 748 A.2d 409, 411 n.4 (D.C. 2000); see also Thompson v. Dist. of Columbia,
428 F.3d 283, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Because a court may inquire sua sponte as to the presence
of subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that these
issues should be considered in connection with the District’s currently pending motion to
dismiss. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (“The objection that a federal
court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own
initiative, at any stage in the litigation.”) (citation omitted). But because the parties have not
briefed this issue in their current motions papers, the Court believes they should be given the
opportunity to do so before it decides the District’s motion to dismiss. As oral argument is
currently scheduled for November 21, 2013, this date must be postponed to provide the parties
with sufficient time to brief the issue and for the Court to consider their arguments. Accordingly,
it is hereby
ORDERED that the District shall file a supplemental memorandum of points and
authorities addressing the viability of plaintiffs’ state law claims, in light of District of Columbia
labor law, on or before December 2, 2013. Alternatively, the District may file a notice stating
that it rests on the arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First Amended
Complaint [Dkt. No. 5] at pages 9-14; it is
FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file a supplemental memorandum
of points and authorities addressing these issues on or before January 13, 2014; and it is
2
FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for November 21, 2013,
is VACATED. After supplemental briefing on these issues has been completed, the Court will
reschedule oral argument at an appropriate time.
SO ORDERED.
/s/______________________________
PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
United States District Judge
DATE: November 7, 2013
3