Court Opinion

ID: 9382364
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-27 15:01:01.497363+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:38.140351
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

GARY MILLS,

              Plaintiff,

      v.                                             Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-01885 (CJN)

AMERICAN SIGNATURE, INC. d/b/a
VALUE CITY FURNITURE,

              Defendant.

                                            ORDER

       This matter is before the Court on Defendant American Signature Value City Furniture’s

(“ASI”) Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 5. On October 19, 2022, the Court issued a Fox order

directing Plaintiff Gary Mills to respond to ASI’s motion on or before November 18, 2022. The

Court warned Mills that if he “fails to file a timely response—or fails to respond to the arguments

raised by Defendant in its Motion—the Court will treat Defendant’s Motion as conceded and, if

the circumstances warrant, enter judgment for Defendant.” Order at 2, ECF No. 12. Mills failed

to file a response by the deadline. Instead, two weeks after the deadline, he filed a one-paragraph

motion requesting the Court to (1) issue an order of wrongful termination, (2) order ASI to provide

one year of salary and retirement benefits, and (3) schedule a hearing. Mills did not otherwise

address the arguments raised in the motion to dismiss.

       By failing to file a timely and substantive response, Mills has conceded the motion to

dismiss. See Local Civ. R. 7(b); Voacolo v. Fed. Nat’l Mortg. Ass’n, 224 F. Supp. 3d 39, 43

(D.D.C. 2016); Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 480–81

                                                1
(D.C. Cir. 2016) (“reluctantly” affirming the district court’s dismissal under Local Civil Rule 7(b)

but noting tension between that rule and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)).

       Moreover, based on the facts before it, the Court concludes that it lacks personal

jurisdiction over ASI. The company is incorporated in Ohio, maintains its principal place of

business in Ohio, and was served in Ohio; it has no offices or stores in the District of Columbia

(and appears to have no other connection—business or otherwise—to the District); and Mills was

employed at an ASI store in Virginia and was terminated while physically present at that store.

Notice of Removal ¶ 8, ECF No. 1; Ex. A, ECF No. 5-2; Ex. B, ECF No. 5-3. Given these facts,

the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over ASI consistent with D.C. law and the Due Process

Clause. See Fiorentine v. Sarton Puerto Rico, LLC, 486 F. Supp. 3d 377, 384–86 (D.D.C. 2020);

see also Kurtz v. United States, 779 F. Supp. 2d 50, 51 (D.D.C. 2011) (“Pro se plaintiffs are not

freed from the requirement to plead an adequate jurisdictional basis for their claims.” (quotations

omitted)).

       Accordingly, it is

       ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; and it is further

       ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

This is a final appealable order.

The Clerk is directed to terminate the case.

DATE: March 27, 2023
                                                             CARL J. NICHOLS
                                                             United States District Judge

                                                 2