42 F. Supp. 3d 111
D.D.C.2014Background
- Barnes sued his employer, the District of Columbia, in DC Superior Court alleging disability-based discrimination under ADA and DCHRA, hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, and whistleblower protections; the case was removed to this court under 28 U.S.C. § 1331.
- DYRS employed Barnes as a Program Support Specialist from January 2012 until his job loss, dates of which are unspecified.
- Barnes asserted seven claims spanning federal and local law: ADA, DCHRA, Title VII hostilities and retaliation, and DC Whistleblower Act claims.
- Defendant moved to dismiss all seven counts or grant partial summary judgment on counts I–III and VI–VII; Barnes did not oppose and later moved to amend to drop federal claims and seek remand to DC Superior Court.
- The court granted Barnes’s motion to amend and remand on the condition that federal claims be dismissed with prejudice, and dismissed the federal claims with prejudice while remanding state-law claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the federal claims should be dismissed with prejudice | Barnes argues the motion to amend should be resolved before the dismissal motion despite untimely opposition. | Defendant seeks dismissal of federal claims with prejudice to prevent reassertion after remand. | Yes; federal claims dismissed with prejudice. |
| Whether the case should be remanded to DC Superior Court | Barnes seeks remand after amendment, preserving state-law claims. | Defendant consents to amendment/remand but requires dismissal of federal claims with prejudice. | Yes; remanded to DC Superior Court. |
| Whether the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | There are remaining state-law claims that could be heard in federal court. | With no federal claims, court should decline supplemental jurisdiction. | Declined supplemental jurisdiction; remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins v. Wackenhut Servs., Inc., 703 F.3d 122 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (court may impose conditions on leave to amend; Rule 15/41 interplay discussed by judge's concurrence)
- Twelve John Does v. District of Columbia, 117 F.3d 571 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (treating motion to dismiss as conceded when no timely opposition)
- Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (describes Rule 41(b) as adjudication on the merits unless stated otherwise)
- Gates v. United States, 928 F. Supp. 2d 63 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissal with prejudice addressed where no opposition)
- Payne v. Parkchester N. Condos., 134 F. Supp. 2d 582 (S.D.N.Y. 2001) (courts consider fairness/judicial economy in remand/removal context)