Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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

Marcus v. Mnuchin

United States District Court, District of Columbia

September 28, 2018

JESSALYN L. MARCUS, Plaintiff,
v.
STEVEN MNUCHIN, Secretary, U.S. Department of the Treasury, et al., Defendants.[1]

          MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

          EMMET G. SULLIVAN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         Jessalyn Marcus, proceeding pro se, filed her complaint (ECF No. 1) on August 27, 2009.[2] The Court granted leave to file her first amended complaint (ECF No. 32, “Am. Compl.”) on November 2, 2010. On September 22, 2011, Judge Urbina issued a Memorandum and Order (ECF Nos. 41-42) which dismissed plaintiff's claim against the federal government under the DCHRA for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and a race discrimination claim because the amended complaint failed to state a claim against the federal government under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 for which relief could be granted. In addition, Judge Urbina dismissed plaintiff's tort claims, a standalone “pattern or practice” claim under Title VII, and her demand for punitive damages. On February 1, 2012, counsel filed an answer (ECF No. 49) on behalf of the United States Department of the Treasury, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and Timothy Geithner, Lorraine Robinson, Gregory Carper, and Leonard Olijar in their official capacities.

         Based on the parties' representations at an initial scheduling conference on April 5, 2012, Judge Urbina referred the case to Magistrate Judge John Facciola for settlement discussions (ECF No. 52) and appointed counsel to represent plaintiff for the limited purpose of mediation (ECF No. 53). The parties did not settle the case. After Judge Urbina's retirement, this case randomly was reassigned on April 20, 2012.

         On November 26, 2012, retained counsel entered her appearance (ECF No. 56) for plaintiff. After discovery closed and discovery-related motions were resolved, plaintiff filed a motion for partial summary judgment (ECF No. 82) on February 23, 2014. Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 93) on March 26, 2014. The motions had been briefed fully when plaintiff's retained counsel filed a motion to withdraw (ECF No. 110) on September 17, 2014. The Court granted the motion by minute order on September 22, 2014. Based plaintiff's representation that the parties were discussing settlement at that time, the Court stayed proceedings and referred the matter to Magistrate Judge Facciola (ECF Nos. 114-115) on September 24, 2014. The parties advised the Court (ECF No. 117) that they were unable to reach an agreement.

         Plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment does not comply with Local Civil Rule 7(h)(1), which requires that a statement of material facts as to which she contends there is no genuine issue accompany the motion. Although her supporting memorandum includes a section entitled “Statement of Undisputed Facts, ” it is not a separate document setting forth in sequentially numbered paragraphs the material facts as to which she contends there is no genuine issue. Without a separate statement of material facts, defendants have not, and could not be expected to, prepare a corresponding “separate concise statement of genuine issues setting forth all material facts as to which it is contended there exists a genuine issue necessary to be litigated, which shall include references to the parts of the record relied on to support the statement.” LCvR 7(h)(1).

         Defendants' motion better conforms to Local Civil Rule 7(h), as it includes a separate Statement of Material Facts Not In Dispute. Plaintiff submits a statement of genuine issues, (ECF No. 99-44), but it is not a concise statement. Certain of plaintiff's responses are pages long; some include excess language straying far beyond the facts defendants assert; others are presented as objections which do not clearly indicate whether plaintiff deems the fact disputed.

         Plaintiff's pro se first amended complaint remains the operative pleading. It presents considerable challenges for the parties and for the Court. Although it identifies “[t]he defendant [as] the federal government agency that designs, prints and furnishes the U.S. paper currency for delivery to the Federal Reserve System, ” (Am. Compl. ¶ 2), the caption lists the following defendants:

• Timothy Geithner, [former] Secretary of the Treasury
• Leonard Olijar, Chief Financial Officer
• The Department of the Treasury
• Bureau of Engraving & Printing
• Lorraine E. Robinson
• Gregory D. ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

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