Mills et al v. Billington et al

District of Columbia, dcd-1:2004-cv-02205

ORDER denying {{120}} and {{191}} Motion for Sanctions; denying {{172}} Motion to Dismiss or in the alternative {{172}} Motion for Summary Judgment as to failure to exhaust administrative remedies; the doctrine of res judicata. The motion is Denied w/o pre judice to renew and w/leave to renew based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel and failure to state a claim. Discovery disputes contained in motions {{192}}, {{207}} and 211 are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay. Within 10 days after these disputes are resolved, discovery must be completed. Plaintiffs shall file a motion for class certification in accordance with the deadlines set forth in this order. Signed by Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr on 3/12/2013.

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________________________ CHRISTINE MILLS, RUNAKO BALONDEMU, GERALDINE DUNCAN, PRISCILLA IJEOMAH, LAWRENCE PERRY, WILLIAM ROWLAND, DAVID HUBBARD, CLIFTON KNIGHT, SHARON TAYLOR, and CHARLES MWALIMU, Plaintiffs, v. 1:04-CV-2205 (FJS/AK) JAMES HADLEY BILLINGTON, Librarian, Library of Congress, Defendants. _________________________________________________ APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL ROSE LEGAL ADVOCATES DAVID L. ROSE, ESQ. 1726 M Street, NW JOSHUA N. ROSE, ESQ. Suite 203 EARLENE W. ROSENBERG, ESQ. Washington, D.C. 20036 Attorneys for Plaintiffs OFFICE OF THE UNITED BEVERLY M. RUSSELL, AUSA STATES ATTORNEY JULIA DOUDS, AUSA 555 4th Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorneys for Defendant SCULLIN, Senior Judge ORDER Currently before the Court are Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 172, and Defendant's motion to strike the declarations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss, see Dkt. No. 192. The Court heard oral argument in support of, and in opposition to, these motions on March 5, 2013. Consistent with the Court's discussion with counsel at the conclusion of oral argument, the following constitutes the Court's written resolution of these motions. Accordingly, the Court hereby ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED insofar as that motion is based on the doctrine of res judicata; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiff's motion for class certification; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment is DENIED without prejudice and with leave to renew insofar as that motion is based on failure to state a claim. Defendant may renew its motion to dismiss and/or for summary judgment on this ground, if appropriate, in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant's motion for sanctions, which seeks relief in the form of the dismissal of Plaintiffs' class claims, see Dkt. No. 120, and Defendant's motion for leave to file a supplemental memorandum in support of that motion, see Dkt. No. 191, are DENIED; and the -2- Court further ORDERS that the pending discovery disputes regarding class discovery, including but not limited to Defendant's motion for a protective order, see Dkt. No. 207, Plaintiffs' motion for clarification of Magistrate Judge Kay's May 28, 2010 Order, see Dkt. No. 211, and Defendant's motion to strike the declarations that Plaintiffs filed in support of their opposition to Defendant's motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for summary judgment, see Dkt. No. 192, are referred to Magistrate Judge Kay for resolution; and the Court further ORDERS that, within ten days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the outstanding class discovery issues, the parties shall complete said discovery; and the Court further ORDERS that, within forty days of the date on which Magistrate Judge Kay resolves the outstanding class discovery issues, Plaintiffs shall file their motion for class certification; and the Court further ORDERS that Defendant shall file its opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification within fourteen days of the date on which Plaintiffs file their motion for class certification; and the Court further ORDERS that the parties shall not file any further papers either in support of or in opposition to Plaintiffs' motion for class certification. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 12, 2013 Syracuse, New York -3-