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

______________________________) LA VE RN A SI M M S, ) ) P la in t if f, )

) v. ) Ci vilAc ti on N o. 06 -2 17 8 ( RC L) ) DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) GOVERN MENT, e t al

. )

) De fend ant s. ) ______________________________) M EM OR

AN DU M OP IN ION Now bef ore the Court is the plaintiff’s motion [ 56] t o amend the Court’ s November 26, 2008 order . Upon consider ation of the motion, the opposition, and the reply , the plaintiff’s mot ion wi ll b e GR

AN TE D i n p art

and DENI ED in p art
.

I. BACK GR OUND On Dec ember

21, 2006, plaintiff L aver na Simms filed suit alleg ing that she and other fema le contra ctors and e mploy ees w ere subject to a pattern of se x ual har assment at the District of Columbi a De partment of Corr ections (“ DOC”). Plaintiff’ s suit names three de fenda nts: the District of Columbia, the Direc tor of the DO C, and the Center for Corr ectional He alth and Policy Studies (“CCHPS ”). O n November 26, 2008, the Court g rante d the motions to di smiss and for summary judgme nt of defe ndants District of Columbia and the Dire ctor of the Depa rtment of Cor re c tio ns . T he Court

dis mis se d th e fe de ra l la

w c la ims a g a ins t th os e de fe nd ants on the me ri ts,Cla ims un de r D istri c t of Col umb ia

law a re so me tim e s r e fe rr e d to a s “ state law” c la ims 1 even thoug h the District of Columbia is not a state. 2 and dis mis se d th e re ma ini ngDi str ic t of Col umb ia

la w c la ims a g a ins t th os e de fe nd ants be c a us e 1 of the la c k o f s ub

je c t- matte r j ur isd ic tio n. On De c e mbe r 2 4, 20 08 , th e pla int if f f ile d a mot ion to
ame nd the Court ’s No ve mbe r 2 6, 20 08 or de r. Al tho ug h th e pla int if f d oe s n ot c le arl y

art ic ulate the re lief that she is see king, she appar ently wants cla rification that her District of Columbia law claims wer e dismissed without prejudice, a reinstateme nt of her D .C. law claims without the
n ec es s i ty o f afi l i n g fe e, an d

fo r t h e C o urt t o p re v en tth e D i s tri ct o f C o l u mb i a f ro mas s ert i n g a statute of limitations defense. ( Mot. [ 56] at 3, 5,6.) The Court will clarify its order to re flec t that the pla int if

f’ s D istri c t of

Col umb ia

law c la ims we re dis mis se d w ith out pr e jud ic e ; ho we ve r, a ll other re lief that the plaintiff r equests will be denie d.

II. AN AL YSI S Pla int if f i s c or re c t th a t th e Cou

rt ’s me mor and

um o pin ion

pr op e rl y re fl e c ts that he r D .C. law cla ims were dismissed without prejudice . The Court stated in its Memorandum Opinion:

“ Pla int if f a lso c la ims that th e Di str ic t of Col umb ia

and DO C are lia

ble fo r t he c omm on

law t or ts of intentional infliction of emotional distress and ne g lige nt supervision . . . As this Court has dismiss ed the c laims arising under f eder al law . . . a ll claims ag ainst the District of Columbia and DOC shall be dismissed without prejudice.” (Mem. Op. [51] at 11.) Indeed, this rulingwas c orre ct. “[W] hen the f eder al-lawclaims have dropped out of the lawsuit in its early

stag es and only

state-law claims rema in, the fede ral c ourt should decline the exercise of

jurisdiction by

dismiss ing the case without prejudice.” Car ne gie -M e llo n U niv e rsi ty3

v . Co hil l , 484 U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Ac cording ly , althoug h the orde r does not spec ifically ref lect that the District of Columbia law cla ims were dismissed without prejudice , plaintiff is corr ect that th e y we re un de r t

he Court ’s de c isi on , a

nd the or de r w ill be c lari fi e d to re fl e c t th a t f a c t. Pla int if f a pp are ntl y argue s th a t he r c la ims sh ou ld n ot h ave be e n d ism iss e d b e c a us e diversity jurisdiction ex ists, and theref ore that the D.C. law cla ims should be reinstated. Plaintiff argues that her

second a mended c omplaint relates ba ck to her orig inal complaint, which included he r M ary land a dd re ss, and that th e Court

sh ou ld h ave inf

e rr e d f ro m th a t a dd

re ss t hat di ve rs ity jur isd ic tio n e xists . Pl a int if f’ s c la im i s r e

je c te d f or tw o r e a so ns . F ir st, the ba sis fo r j ur isd ic tio n in the sec ond amende d complaint did not “relate bac k” to the basis for jurisdiction in the origina l complaint. The g ener al rule is that an a mended c omplaint supersede s and re place s an orig inal complaint unless the amendme nt specifica lly ref ers to or a dopts an ea

rlier plea ding. Eubanks v. Pa rk e r Co un ty Com ’r s Co ur t , 4 4 F .3 d 1 00 4 ( 5th Cir . 1 99 5) ; Davis v. M

ukasey , No. 08-452, 2008 WL5227176, at *1 (D.D .C. Dec. 11, 2008) (Kollar- Kotelly , J .). In this case, while the plaintiff incorpora ted “a ll alleg ations” made in her orig inal complaint, she did not incorporate the jurisdictional basis for her suit, and, in fact, a sserted f eder al question and supplementa l jurisdiction, but not di versity jurisdiction in her amende d complaint. (Am. Compl. [ 7] at ¶ 1–2.) More importantly , howeve r, is the fa ct that eve n if the Court wer e to consider the plaintiff’s addr ess listing in Mary land, this would not give r ise to diversity jurisdiction. As pointed out by

the def endants, the D istrict of Columbia is not considere d a “c itiz en” of a state, and thus ca

nnot be sued unde r the diver sity statute in fede ral c ourt. Long v. District of Colum bia , 820 F.2d 409, 413 ( D.C. Cir. 1987). I f a jurisdictional ba sis ex ists for her D .C. law claims in fede ral c ourt, the plaintiff ha s not made it appar ent, and, be cause the burde n is on theEv e n if the Court we re to a dd

re ss t his argume nt, “ [c]o ur

ts r outin e ly

a llo w d e fe nd ants to 2 fi le a mot ion to d ism iss in p la c e of

an a ns we r d e sp ite an e ntr

y of de fa ult , a nd thi s Co ur t is unawa re of any decision in which the c ourt has struck a motion to di smiss following an e ntry of defua lt because the motion to vacate the defa ult was filed without an answ er.” Owens v. Republic of Sudan , 374 F. Supp. 2d 1, 9 (D.D .C. 2005) (B ates, J.). 4 plaintiff to establish jurisdiction, the claims ag ainst the District of Columbia and the Dire ctor of the DOC we re pr operly

dismiss ed. F ed. R Civ. P. 12(h)(3). Instead of dive rsity

jurisdiction, the plaintiff could have made a better a rgument that the Court sh ou ld h ave e xer c ise d s up ple me nta l juri sd ic tio n o ve r t he Di str ic t of

Col umb ia

law c la ims
. See 28 U. S.C. § 1 36 7( a ). Ho we ve r, the pla int if f d id n ot m ake thi s a

rgume nt. Mo re ov e r, be c a us e the fe de ra l c la ims we re dis mis se d at an e arl y sta g e in t he pr oc e e din g s, the Court pr op e rl y declined to e x erc ise supplemental jurisdiction over the District of Columbia claims. CarnegieMellon Univ. , 484 U.S. at 250; 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) . The plaintiff’ s argument for reinstateme nt of her c laims will be rejec ted. Be cause the D.C. law c laims ag ainst the District of Columbia and the Dire ctor of the Depa rtment of Corre ctions were proper ly dismiss ed without prejudice , the Court has no occ asion to addre ss the plaintiff’s statute of limitations argument. Nor doe s the Court see the r eleva nce of the pla int if

f’ s c la im that th e Di str ic t de fi e d th e loc a l r ule s b y mov ingto v a c a te an e ntr y of de fa ult with a motion to dis miss ins tead of a ver ified answe r. 2

III . CO NC LU SION Plaintiff’s motion to amend the Court’s November 26, 2008 order

will be g rante d to the extent that it seeks c larifica tion. Pl aintiff’s c laims ag ainst the District of Columbia and the Direc tor of the De partment of Corr ections under District of Columbia law wer e dismissed5

wi tho ut p re

jud ic e , a s st a te d in

the me mor and

um o pin ion . T his Court

pr op e rl y dis mis se d th os e claims for la ck of jurisdiction, and a ny further pursuit of those claims in this Court would require the plaintiff to meet this Court’s jurisdictional require ments and re file her claims. Any

other
argume nts that g o to the un de rl yingsu it, su c h a s st a tut e of lim itatio ns argume nts , w ou ld p ro pe rl y be addr essed by

a cour t with proper jurisdiction over the under lying c laims. A separ ate or der shall issue this date. SO ORDERED.
Signed by Chief J udg e Roy ce C. L amber th on Aug ust 18, 2009.