UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

_________________________________________

)

KENNETH DICKERSON, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

v. ) Civil Action No. 09-2213 (PLF)

)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

_________________________________________ )

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

It has come to the Court’s attention that at an earlier stage in this litigation, when 

this case was before now-Chief Judge Richard W. Roberts, the District had raised an issue 

whether some of the plaintiffs’ state law claims might be foreclosed by their alleged failure to 

follow grievance procedures established by District of Columbia labor law. The District made 

this argument in its motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint. See Dkt. No. 5 at 9-14. 

The District’s motion was denied as moot in a Memorandum Order that also granted the 

plaintiffs leave to file a Second Amended Complaint. Dickerson v. Dist. of Columbia, 806 F. 

Supp. 2d 116, 121 (2011). 

In that Memorandum Order, Judge Roberts deemed it “premature to conclude 

from this briefing that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust their administrative remedies.” Id. The 

District has not raised this argument in its briefing on the currently pending motion to dismiss the 

Third Amended Complaint, although it has noted that “it does not waive such a defense, and 

reserves the right to raise it in a subsequent motion.” See Reply [Dkt. No. 30] at 2 n.1.
2

The Court notes that these arguments, if correct, could deprive the Court of 

subject matter jurisdiction over at least some of the plaintiffs’ state law claims. See Robinson v. 

Dist. of Columbia, 748 A.2d 409, 411 n.4 (D.C. 2000); see also Thompson v. Dist. of Columbia, 

428 F.3d 283, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2005). Because a court may inquire sua sponte as to the presence

of subject matter jurisdiction at any stage of the proceedings, the Court concludes that these 

issues should be considered in connection with the District’s currently pending motion to 

dismiss. See Arbaugh v. Y & H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 506 (2006) (“The objection that a federal 

court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction . . . may be raised by a party, or by a court on its own 

initiative, at any stage in the litigation.”) (citation omitted). But because the parties have not 

briefed this issue in their current motions papers, the Court believes they should be given the 

opportunity to do so before it decides the District’s motion to dismiss. As oral argument is 

currently scheduled for November 21, 2013, this date must be postponed to provide the parties 

with sufficient time to brief the issue and for the Court to consider their arguments. Accordingly, 

it is hereby

ORDERED that the District shall file a supplemental memorandum of points and 

authorities addressing the viability of plaintiffs’ state law claims, in light of District of Columbia 

labor law, on or before December 2, 2013. Alternatively, the District may file a notice stating 

that it rests on the arguments made in its Motion to Dismiss the Plaintiffs’ First Amended 

Complaint [Dkt. No. 5] at pages 9-14; it is

FURTHER ORDERED that the plaintiffs shall file a supplemental memorandum 

of points and authorities addressing these issues on or before January 13, 2014; and it is
3

FURTHER ORDERED that the oral argument scheduled for November 21, 2013, 

is VACATED. After supplemental briefing on these issues has been completed, the Court will 

reschedule oral argument at an appropriate time.

SO ORDERED.

/s/______________________________

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN

United States District Judge

DATE: November 7, 2013