Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Lucia Vega v. Vincent C. Gray

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA


September 7, 2012

LUCIA VEGA, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VINCENT C. GRAY, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Richard W. Roberts United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM ORDER

Plaintiff Lucia Vega, a former school principal with the District of Columbia Public School system ("DCPS") from 2003 through 2008, filed a seven-count complaint against the Mayor of the District of Columbia and the DCPS alleging discrimination based on national origin in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act ("DCHRA"), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01, et seq., discrimination based on race in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000(e), et seq., and discrimination based on age in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 (Count One); discriminatory interference with Vega's contractual rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 (Count Two); common law claims of wrongful discharge, defamation, business defamation, and civil conspiracy (Counts Three, Four, and Five); violation of ERISA (Count Six); and breach of her employment contract (Count Seven), arising out of Vega's resignation from the DCPS in June 2008.

The defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the portion of Count One alleging a violation of the DCHRA and Counts Two through Seven.

Local Civil Rule 7(b) provides that

Within 14 days of the date of service . . . an opposing party shall serve and file a memorandum of points and authorities in opposition to the motion. If such a memorandum is not filed within the prescribed time, the Court may treat the motion as conceded.

Local Civil Rule 7(b). "[I]t is well settled that a plaintiff's failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits a court to grant the motion as conceded." Hoffman v. Dist. of Columbia, 681 F. Supp. 2d 86, 94 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Fox v. Am. Airlines, 389 F.3d 1291, 1294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (affirming dismissal of a complaint where the plaintiff failed to file a timely response to the defendant's motion to dismiss)). The plaintiff has not responded to the defendants' motion, so the motion will be deemed conceded. It is hereby

ORDERED that the defendants' motion [4] to dismiss the DCHRA claim in Count One and Counts Two through Seven in their entirety be, and hereby is, GRANTED.

20120907

© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.