United States District Court, D. Columbia.
DEREK N. JARVIS, et al., Plaintiffs,
DARRYL S. PARKER and C. HOPE BROWN, Defendants
For DEREK N. JARVIS, LASHAWN D. LEWIS, LACREASHA A. KENNEDY-JARVIS, Plaintiffs: Jaime T. Zeas, LEAD ATTORNEY, Bethesda, MD.
For DARRYL S. PARKER, Esquire, Defendant: Aaron L. Handleman, Shannon L. Chaudhry, LEAD ATTORNEYS, ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C., Washington, DC.
COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY, United States District Judge.
Presently before the Court is Plaintiffs'  Motion for Relief from Judgment Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b). Upon consideration of the pleadings , the relevant legal authorities, and the record as a whole, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' Motion. Accordingly, this action remains DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE in its entirety.
Plaintiffs filed their  Complaint in this action on March 18, 2013. On April 16, 2013, Defendant Parker filed a  Motion to Dismiss. On April 17, 2013, Defendant Brown filed a  Motion to Dismiss, or in the Alternative, for Summary Judgment. As explained in greater detail in the
Court's  May 13, 2013 Memorandum Order, under the Federal and Local Rules, Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant Parker's motion was due on Friday, May 3, 2013, and Plaintiffs' opposition to Defendant Brown's motion was due on Monday, May 6, 2013. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d); LCvR 7(b). Plaintiffs served neither opposition by the required deadline. Nor did Plaintiffs file a motion seeking an extension of time to respond to either motion, as was required by this Court's standing order. See Order Establishing Procedures for Cases Assigned to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly (Mar. 19, 2013), ECF No. , at ¶ 7.
Accordingly, on May 8, 2013, the Court issued an  Order which (1) granted Defendant Brown's motion to dismiss as conceded, due to Plaintiffs' failure to timely file an opposition memorandum, and (2) dismissed without prejudice Plaintiffs' Complaint against Defendant Brown. On May 13, 2013, the Court issued a separate  Order which, inter alia, struck Plaintiffs' late-filed opposition memorandum to Defendant Parker's motion to dismiss. The Court further granted Plaintiffs until May 15, 2013 to file a motion requesting reconsideration of the Court's Order dismissing without prejudice their case against Defendant Brown, and requesting post-deadline extensions for the filing of Plaintiffs' opposition briefs. See Order (May 13, 2013), ECF No. .
On May 15, 2013, Plaintiffs timely filed a  Motion for Reconsideration Seeking Extensions of Time for the Filing of Plaintiff Beneficiaries' Post-Deadline Opposition Briefs, which both Defendants opposed. On May 31, 2013, however, Plaintiffs filed a  Motion to Withdraw their Motion for Reconsideration, which requested, inter alia, that the Court permit Plaintiffs to withdraw their motion for reconsideration. On June 3, 2013, the Court subsequently issued an  Order granting Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw and, in light of this motion, dismissed Plaintiffs' case without prejudice in its entirety.
The Court also used the  Memorandum Opinion accompanying this Order as an opportunity to make an important clarification for the record. In Plaintiffs' motion to withdraw their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs vaguely indicated that they untimely filed their opposition motions " due to Plaintiffs' counsel's serious illness during April 2013." See ECF No. , at 1. However, the Court noted that in their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs represented more specifically that Plaintiffs' counsel was incapacitated from influenza only from Monday, April 22, 2013 until Tuesday, April 30, 2013. See ECF No. , at 2. Plaintiffs also represented that Plaintiffs' failed to timely file their opposition briefs because Plaintiffs' counsel made an inadvertent error in that he believed Plaintiffs had twenty-one (21) days, see id. at 3, instead of the fourteen (14) days provided by this Court's Local Rules plus three (3) additional days, where service is made through electronic filing, see LCvR 7(b); Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(d). Plaintiffs' counsel provided no explanation for his failure to consult this Court's Local Rules governing the time for responding to motions at the time Defendants' motions to dismiss were filed, which was prior to Plaintiffs' counsel's alleged incapacitation -- specifically, on April 16, 2013 and April 17, 2013. Nor did Plaintiffs' counsel provide any explanation for his failure to consult the Local Rules in the ...