UNITED STAT ES DIS TRICT COURT F OR THE D ISTRIC T OF CO LU M BIA

) GREGORY BOWYER, e t al . , )

) P laintif fs, )

) v. ) Civil Action No. 09-319 (RMC) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, e t al . , ) ) Defendan ts. ) )
M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Plaintiffs Gre g ory Bow y er a nd Ger ald Penning ton are Afric an-A merica n firef ighte rs employ ed by

District of Columbia Fire and Em er gen cy Medica l Services ( “DCF EMS”). On Fe bruar y 19, 2009, they

filed a Complaint ag ainst the District of Columbia, Dennis Rubin, Chi ef of DC F EM S, a

nd Ga ry Pa lme r, Jr., a

De pu ty F ir e Chi e f i n D CF EM S, a lle g ingvio la tio ns of the D. C. Wh is tleblower Protec tion Act (“D .C. W PA”), D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq. , t he Fi rst Am end e me nt,
and 42 U.S. C. § 19 81 . D e fe nd ants have mov e d to dis mis s p ur su ant t o F e de ra l Ru le s o f C ivi l Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 1) and

12 (b )( 6)

. F or the re a so ns se t fo rt h be low , the Court wi ll g ra nt D e fe nd a nts mot ion in p art and de ny in p art
. A motion to dismi ss pursuant to Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 12(b) (6) c halleng es the ade quacy

of a c omplaint on its fac e, testing whether a plainti ff ha s proper ly stated a c laim. Fe dera l Rule of Civil Procedur e 8(a) require s that a complaint conta in “a short a nd plain statement of the c la im s ho wi ngthat th e ple a de r i s e nti tle d to re lie f. ” F e d. R. C iv. P. 8( a ). A c omp la int mus t be sufficient “to give a defe ndant fa ir notice of the claims ag ainst him.” Be ll At l. C or p. v . Two mb ly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Althoug h a complaint does not ne ed deta iled fa ct u al allegations, aWhe n f

a c e d w itha

fa c ia l c ha lle ng e to s ub

je ct mat ter ju ri sd ic tio n und e r F e de ra l Ru le of Civ il 1 Procedur e 12(b) (1) – that is, whe n a def endant ar gu es t h at t he fa cts alleg ed in the complaint ar e insufficient to conf

er subject matter jurisdi ction upon the cour t – the Court applies substantially the same sta nd a rd of re vie w that is us e d to e va luate F e de ra l Rul e of Civ il Pr oc e dure 12 (b )( 6) mot ion s. See Vanover v. Hantman , 7 7 F . Su pp . 2 d 9 1, 98 (D .D .C. 19 99 ); se e als o Ma c ha ria , 238 F. Supp. 2d a t 19 (“ On

a [12( b) (1 )] m oti on

to dis mis s a ca se that pre se nts su c h a ‘f a c ia l c ha lle ng e ,’ a

c ourt mus t a c c e pt a ll o f t

he c omp la int ’s we ll- ple a de d f a c tua l a lle g a tio ns as tr ue and dr aw a ll r e a so na

ble -2- pla int if f’ s o bli g a tio n to pr ov ide the g ro un ds of his e nti tle me nt t o r e lie f “ re qu ir e s mo re tha n la be ls and conc lusions, and a formulaic rec itation of t h e elements of a cause of ac tion will not do.” Id. (interna l citations omit ted). Rule 8(a ) re quires a “ showing ” and not just a blanket asser tion of a r ight to relief. Id. n.3.

Once a cl a im

h a s b e e ns tate d

a d e qu a te ly , “ it

ma y b e s u p p o rte d b y s h o w in g an y

s et of fa cts consistent with the alleg ations in the complaint.” Id. at 563. A cour t must t reat the complaint’s fa ctual alleg ations as true, “ even if doubtful in fact ,” id . at 58 9, and mus t dr a w a ll
rea sonab l e infe renc es in the plaintiff’s f avor. Macharia v. U

nited States , 238 F. Supp. 2d 13, 19 (D.D.C. 2002), aff’d , 334 F.3d 61 ( D.C. Cir. 2003). Ev e n so, the fa c ts al le g e d “ mus t be e no ug h to raise a rig ht to relief a

bove the spe culative leve l,” Twom bly , 550 U.S. at 555, and the court ne ed not
acc ept as true infere nces unsuppor ted by fac ts se t out in the complaint or leg al conc lusions cast as fac tual alleg ations. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 129 S. Ct . 1937, 1949-1950 (2009) ; Browning v. Clint on , 292 F .3 d 2 35 , 2 42 (D .C. Cir . 2 00 2) . “ [A] c omp la int ne e ds some information about the c ircumst ance s g iving r ise to the claims.” Aktieselsk abet Af 21. Nov. 2001 v. FameJeans, I nc. , 525 F.3d 8, 1 6 n .4 (D

. C
. C ir

. 2 0 0 8 ) (em p h asis in o ri gi n al)
. I n decidinga Rule 12(b) (6) motion, the Court may consider only “the f acts alleg ed in t he complaint, docume nts attache d as exhibit s or incorpor ated by ref ere nce in the complaint, and matters about which the Court may take judicial notice .” Gustave- Schmidt v. Chao , 226 F. Supp. 2d 191, 196 (D.D .C. 2002) (citation omitted). 1infere nces f rom those alleg ations in the plaintiff’s favor.”) -3- The Court ag ree s with Defe ndants, and Plaintiffs conc ede, that Count I , alleg ing violations of the D.C. WP A must be dismissed with respect to Mr. Rubin and M r. P al m er. See W illiams v. Johnson , 5 37 F . Su pp . 2 d 1 41 , 1 48 (D .D .C. 20 08 ) ( fi nd ingthat “ the WPA doe s n ot c re a te
a pr ivate ri g ht o f a c tio n a g a ins t in div idu a l su pe rv iso rs .” ); Tab b v . Di

str ic t of C olu mb ia , 477 F. Supp. 2d 185, 189 (D.D.C. 2007) ( same)

. S i m i l ar l y , Plaintiffs conce de that they may not seek punitive damag es fr om the District of Columbia and that any claims ag ainst the Dis trict of C olumbia arising from ac tions predating J une 30, 2008, are barr ed because Plaintiffs failed to c omply with D.C. Code § 12-309, which r equire s a plaintiff to notify the May or within six months of the injury complained of pr ior to f ili ng a laws uit a g a ins t the Di str ic t. As to a ll oth e r c ounts , Pl a int if fs have a lle g e d f

a c ts which, if true , would ent i t l e them to relief. A ccor dingly , Def endants’ motion to dismiss will be g rante d in pa

rt and denied in pa

rt. A memorializing orde r ac companies this Memora ndum Opinion.

Date : Oc tob e r 1 4, 20 09 /s/ ROSEMARY M. COL L YER United States District J udg e