UNI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE DI STRI CT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________ ) RANDOL PH S. KOCH, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2111 ( PL F) ) Civil Action No. 11-1645 ( PL F) EL I SSE W AL TER, Chairman, ) Civil Action No. 12-0301 ( PL F) Securities and E x chang e Commissi on, ) et al., ) ) Def endants. )

1 ____________________________________)

MEMORANDUM OPI

NI ON AND ORDER This matter is befor e the Court on the f ollowing motions: (1) def endant’ s motion to dismi ss or, in the alterna tive, for summary

judgme nt in Koch v. Walter, Civil Action No. 09-2111; (2) de fenda

nt’s motion to di smiss i n Koch v. Holde r, Civil Action No. 11-1645; and (3) de fenda

nts’ motion to di smiss, or, in the alternative, f or summary

judgme nt in Koch v. Walter, et al., Civil Action No. 12-0301.

Plaintiff Randolph S. Koch, althoug h a lawyer, is ac ting pro se in the three case s listed above a s well as in three additional case s pendingbefor e this Court. See Civil Action No. 08-1521, Civil Action No. 10-0150, Civil Action No. 12-1934. Mr. Koch ha s failed to re spond 2

Elisse Walter, the cur

rent Chairma

n of the Sec urities and Exchang e Commissi on, 1 has bee n substitut ed for

former Chairman Mar

y L . Schapiro pursua

nt to Rul e 25(d) of the F eder al Rules of Civil P roce dure in Civil Action Nos. 09-2111 and 12- 0301.

The g overnme nt submit ted dispositive moti ons in Civi l Action Nos. 08-1521 and 2 10-0150, and, a fter a

series of extensions, M r. Koc h responde d to these motions on Febr uary 8, 2013.to the dispositi ve motions list ed above , despite numerous e x tensions. See April 25, 2012 Orde r,

Civil Action Nos. 09-2111 a nd 11-1645 (f

inding that “ [t ]he tim e has c ome for Mr . Koch to pursue his ca ses or a

bandon them”) ; J une 25, 2012 Or der, Civil Action Nos. 09-2111 and 11-1645 (se tting brie fingschedule ); Minute Orde rs dated Aug ust 16, 2012 and September 19, 2012, Civil Action No. 09-2111 ( g rantingextensions); November 2, 2012 Minute Orde r, Civil Action No. 12-0301 ( g rantingextension); Mi nute Orde rs dated N ovember 19, 2012, November 28, 2012, Civil Action No. 11-1645 ( g rantingextensions); J anuar y 4, 2013 Memorandum Opinion and Orde r, Civil Action No. 09-2111 (deny ing pla intiff’s Rule 56(d) motion and order ing pla intiff to respond on or be fore Fe bruar y 8, 2013); J anuar

y 7, 2013 Minute Order , Civil Action No. 11-1645 ( g rantingextension butstating that no ext ensions of time would be grante d beyond J anuar

y 11, 2013); J anuar

y 7, 2013 Minute Order , Civil Action No. 12-0301 ( g ranting extension butstating that no ext ensions would be grante d afte r January 25, 2013). Be cause the def

endant’ s motion could potentially dispose of this case , the Court will advise this pro se plaintiff of a plaintiff’s oblig ations under the F eder al Rules of Civil Procedur e and the L ocal Civil Rules of this C ourt. See F ox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988); Nea l v. Kelly , 963 F.2d 453, 456 ( D.C. Cir. 1992).

The plaintiff’ s attention theref ore is dire cted to L ocal Civil Rule 7(b), which states: Wit hin . . . such . . . time as the Court may direc t, an opposing party shall serve and file a

memorandum of points and a uthorities in oppositi on to [ a] moti on. I f such a memorandum is not filed within the prescr ibed time, the Court may treat the motion as conce ded. L O C . C I V . R. 7(b).

2Thus, the Court may trea t as conc eded a

ny motion not oppos ed within the time limit s set forth in the orde ringpara g raph of this Memorandum Opinion and Orde r. Alternatively , the Court may

consider on the merits any motion not oppos ed within the time limit s set forth in this Order. A s a re sult, any failure to respond to the def endants’ pe nding motions to dismis s or for summary

judgme nt car

ries with it the risk that the plaintiff’s c omplaints will be dismissed or that judgme nt will be entere d for de fenda nts. Accor dingly , it is hereby ORDERED that, by

Fe bruar y 28, 2013, the plaintiff shall re spond to defenda nts’ dispositi ve motions: (1) defe ndant’s motion to dism iss or, in the alternative, for summary judgme nt in Ci vil Action No. 09-2111 [Dkt. 8] ; (2) def endant’ s motion t o dismiss in Civi l Action No. 11-1645 [Dkt. 6] ; (3) def endants’ motion to dismiss , or, in the alter native, for

summary judgme nt in Ci vil Action No. 12-0301 [Dkt. 15] . I f the plaintiff doe s not respond by that date, the Court may

treat the defe ndant’s motion as conc eded. SO ORDERED.

/s/________________________ PAULL . FRI EDMAN DATE: F ebrua

ry 15, 2013 United States District J udg e

3