Summary
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted defendants’ motion to dismiss a pro se legal-malpractice complaint. The court treated the motion as conceded under Local Civil Rule 7(b) because the plaintiff failed to respond and alternatively held that the complaint failed to plausibly allege the elements of legal malpractice under Rule 12(b)(6).
Holdings
- The court may treat defendants' motion to dismiss as conceded because plaintiff failed to file any opposition by the deadline established in the Fox order.
- The complaint failed to state a plausible legal-malpractice claim because it did not plead facts supporting the essential elements of attorney-client relationship, breach of a reasonable duty, and causally resulting loss.
Questions Presented
- Whether the court could treat defendants' motion to dismiss as conceded under Local Civil Rule 7(b) after plaintiff failed to respond.
- Whether the complaint stated a plausible legal-malpractice claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).
Disposition
dismissed
Cases Cited (7)
- Fox v. Strickland, 837 F.2d 507, 509 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (per curiam)(followed)
- Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476, 481 (D.C. Cir. 2016)(followed)
- Woodhouse v. Ayfi Group, No. 22-cv-1834, 2022 WL 22625187 (D.D.C. Nov. 21, 2022)(followed)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009)(followed)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007)(followed)
- Hedrick v. FBI, 216 F. Supp. 3d 84, 93 (D.D.C. 2016)(followed)
- Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203, 1211 (D.C. 1985)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…