Court Opinion

ID: 9898699
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 22:01:10.584156+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:12.020876
License: Public Domain

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                          FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                                          )
ROBERT MANG,                              )
                                          )
             Plaintiff,                   )
                                          )
      v.                                  )      Civil Action No. 23-cv-02283 (TSC)
                                          )
MUNICIPAL SECURITIES                      )
RULEMAKING BOARD,                         )
                                          )
             Defendant.                   )
                                          )
                                          )

                              MEMORANDUM OPINION

       Defendant removed this pro se case from the Superior Court of the District of

Columbia, asserting federal question jurisdiction. See Not. of Removal, ECF No. 1.

Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. For the following reasons, the motion will be

GRANTED.

       Plaintiff was informed of his obligations to respond to Defendant’s motion by

September 14, 2023, and the consequence of dismissal if he failed to respond. See Aug.

24, 2023 Order, ECF No. 11. On September 11, 2023, the court granted Plaintiff’s

motion to extend the deadline to October 13, 2023, but Plaintiff filed nothing by that

date. Thus, on October 19, 2023, Defendant filed with the court and served on Plaintiff a

notice requesting that its “motion be treated as conceded and that the relief sought therein

be granted.” Not. of Pl.’s Failure to Oppose Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss and Request for

Entry of Order, ECF No. 14. Because Plaintiff still has not filed an opposition or
requested another extension of time, the court considers Defendant’s grounds for

dismissal to be conceded. See Aug. 24, 2023 Order (highlighting that “the court may

treat as conceded any [unopposed] arguments a defendant has advanced in support of its

motion”).

       The relevant factual allegations are as follows. From February 2020 to July 2020,

Defendant employed Plaintiff as a law clerk. Plaintiff worked remotely and “understood

that [Defendant] could monitor his electronic activities while his [personal] device was

connected to the company network.” Def.’s Mem., ECF No. 5-2 at 1-2. On July 13,

2020, while on a Zoom call with his therapist, Plaintiff received an alert that he was

connected to Defendant’s network, “which prompted him to disconnect.” Id. at 2.

       Plaintiff alleges unlawful eavesdropping by Defendant and demands damages. He

raises claims “sounding in tort, contract, and statute,” Def.’s Mem. at 3, the latter

including a claim under the Electronic Communications Privacy Act (ECPA), 18 U.S.C.

§§ 2703 et seq. See Am. Compl., ECF No. 1-3 (Tenth Cause of Action). By his silence,

Plaintiff concedes that (1) the federal claim is barred by the ECPA’s two-year statute of

limitations, Def.’s Mem. at 16, and (2) the non-federal claims are barred by the D.C.

Workers’ Compensation Act (WCA), id. at 6-7. See Vanzant v. Washington Metro. Area

Transit Auth., 557 F. Supp. 2d 113, 117 (D.D.C. 2008) (“The WCA is the exclusive

remedy for a workplace injury.”) (citing D.C. Code § 32-1504(a)). Therefore, this case

will be dismissed, albeit without prejudice. A corresponding order will issue separately.

Date: November 14, 2023

                                           Tanya S. Chutkan
                                           TANYA S. CHUTKAN
                                           United States District Judge

                                              2