WARBINGTON v. HARRIS TEETER, INC., No. 1:2019cv01585 - Document 11 (D.D.C. 2019)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OPINION accompanying the final order issued separately this day. Signed by Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly on 9/18/19.(ah)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
WARBINGTON v. HARRIS TEETER, INC. Doc. 11 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Garrett Marcell Warbington, Plaintiff, v. Harris Teeter, Inc., Defendant. : : : : : : : : Civil Action No. 19-1585 (CKK) MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiff, appearing pro se, filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia against Harris Teeter, Inc., which removed the action to this Court based on diversity jurisdiction. See Not. of Removal ¶¶ 3, 6, 7 [Dkt. # 1] (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(1)). Pending is Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, or Alternatively, for a More Definite Statement. For the following reasons, the Court will grant the motion to dismiss. On July 1, 2019, plaintiff was ordered to respond to defendant’s motion by August 5, 2019 or face possible dismissal of the case. See Order [Dkt. # 8]. Plaintiff has neither complied with the order nor requested additional time to comply. Consistent with the advisements in the order the Court turns to defendant’s arguments, and it agrees that the Complaint [Dkt. # 1-1] is wholly deficient in stating a viable claim for relief. See Def.’s P. & A. in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 2-4; Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) (setting out minimal pleading requirements). Therefore, dismissal is warranted, albeit without prejudice. See Def.’s Praecipe of Dismissal [Dkt. # 9] (requesting dismissal with prejudice); cf. Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1209 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (A dismissal with prejudice is harsh and warranted only when a trial court “determines that ‘the allegation of other facts consistent with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure 1 Dockets.Justia.com the deficiency.’ ”) (quoting Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 1985)); Koch v. White, 134 F. Supp. 3d 158, 164 (D.D.C. 2015) (“Given the strong preference for adjudicating cases on their merits rather than on the basis of formalities, . . . dismissal with prejudice for less than perfect compliance with Rule 8(a) is unwarranted”) (citing Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 670-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004)). A separate order accompanies this Memorandum Opinion. ___________s/_______________ COLLEEN KOLLAR-KOTELLY United States District Judge Date: September 18, 2019 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
