UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUl\/IBIA F I L E D

|]E[_`, l 0 2012

Clerk, U.5. District and

SARAH SIMON-ARNOLD et al.,
Ban|<ruptcv Courf$

Plaintiffs,

v. Civil Action No. 12~0955 (PLF)

EPIQ CLASS ACTION &
CLAIMS SOLUTIONS, INC.,

\_/\_/\_/\¢_»/\_/\_/\_/\_/\»_/\¢_/\_/

Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on a motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, for
summary judgment filed by the defendant. For the reasons stated below, the Court will grant
summary judgment to the defendant and will dismiss this case with prejudice.'

Over one hundred plaintiffs are proceeding pro se against the defendant in this
action. The plaintiffs’ grievance arises out of the defendant’s role as the Court-appointed C1aims
Administrator in ln re Black Farmers Discriminati0n Litigation, Misc. No. 08~05] l (D.D.C.)
(PLF). The plaintiffs describe themselves as individuals who wish to file claims of
discrimination pursuant to the claims process established by the settlement agreement in that
case, but who were unable to do so because they were denied claim packages by the defendant.

§ Complaint il‘|l 7~16. Under the settlement agreement, the defendant is tasked with

' 'l`he papers considered in connection with this matter include the following:
plaintiffs’ complaint [Dkt. No. l] (“Complaint"); defendant’s motion to dismiss and/or for
summaryjtidgment [Dkt. No. ]4] ("Mot.") and its accompanying memorandum [Dkt. No. 14-1]
("Mem."), declaration [Dkt. No. 14-3] ("Hamann Decl."), and exhibits; plaintiffs’ opposition
[Dkt. No. 24] ("Opp.")', and defendant’s reply [Dkt. No. 27] ("Reply").

determining whether individual claimants meet the criteria for class inernbership set forth in the
enabling legislation underlying the case, see ln re Black Farmers Discriinination Litigation, 856
F. Supp. 2d l, 23-24 (D.D.C. 2011), and the defendant has provided claim packages only to those
individuals for whom documentation indicates that they are members of the class. §_ee l\/Iem.

w 43-44. Claimants for whom the defendant possesses no documentary evidence demonstrating
their class niembership were notified of this fact and were afforded an opportunity to furnish
such evidence lgl”. The plaintiffs contend that the defendant "discrimiiiated" against them by
denying them claim packages, thereby preventing them from participating in the claims process
by filing a claim before the deadline of l\/Iay ll, 2012. Cornplaint W 7-16. Although the
plaintiffs maintain that this conduct violates the Court’s order approving the settlement
agreeinent,  they do not cite any cause of action as a basis for their c]aims.

The defendant filed a timely motion to disiniss and/or for summary j udgiiient.

Aloiig with its memorandum of law, the defendant provided a detailed declaration and hundreds
of pages of exhibits that collectively address the circumstances of each individual plaintiff. §_cj_e_
Mot.; l\/Iein.; Hainann Decl. The plaintiffs failed to respond to the defendant’s motion. The
Court then issued an order directing the plaintiffs to respond, specifically advising them that if
they did not do so, "the Court may treat the motion as conceded, grant the motion, and dismiss
their case." Meiiiorandum Opinion and Order at 2 (Oct. 2, 2012). The Court further advised the
plaintiffs that the Court would "accept as true any factual assertions contained in aftidavits,
declarations, or attachments submitted by the defendant in support of its motion for sunimary
judgineiit unless the plaintiffs submit affidavits, declarations, or documentary evidence showing

that the defendant’s assertions are untrue." _Igl_. (quoting Neal v. Kelly, 963 F.Zd 453, 456 (D.C.

Cir. 1992)). 'l"lie Court additionafly directed the plaintiffs’ attention to the portion of Rule 56 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Proccdure that states: "The court shall grant summaryjudgrnent if the
inovaiit shows there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the rnovant is entitled to
judgment as a inatter of law." Q. (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a)).

The plaintiffs subsequently filed a response to the defendant’s motion that
consists ofa single sentence: "ln response to the motion that was filed by the defendant on
Septeiiiber 14, 2012, we the plaintiffs were (l) denied due process and (2) were denied packets
being mailed to them thereby denying the plaintiffs the opportunity to file a claim by May ll,
2012 in the Blacl< Fariners Settieinerit." Opp. at l.

ln recognition of their pro se status, the plaintiffs have been treated leniently by
the Court.  l\/Iemoranduni Opinion and Order (Oct. 2, 2012); Mernorandum Opinion and
Order (Aug. 8, 2012). Bttt despite being given ample opportunity to do so, they have not
responded lneaningfully to the defendant’s motion, nor have they offered a single factual or
legal argument in support of their claims. Even assuming the existence of a cause of action
under which the plaintiffs might theoretically be entitled to relief, they have not provided any
evidence or even any factual assertions to rebut the defendant’s evidence indicating that it has
carried out its responsibilities as Claims Adininistrator properly with respect to each plaintiff and
consistent with the settienieiit agreement L Mem. at 13-] 5, 26-3 0; Harnann Decl. ‘[[‘i] 20-141;
_i";ml., Exiis. 6-l l6. To defeat a motion for summary judgrnent, the iion-rnovant must "go beyond
the pleadings and by her own afiidavits, or by the depositions, answers to interrogatories, and

admissions on fiie, designate specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial."

Celotex Cc)rp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 3 l 7, 324 (1986). Because the plaintiffs liave failed to
accomplish this task, or even atteinpt to do s0, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment.
Accoi'dingly, for the foregoing reasons, the Court will grant the del°endant’s
motion for sunnnary judginent. An Order consistent with this Memoranduin Opiiiion will be
issued this saline day.
SO ORDERED.

 

PAUL L. FRIEDMAN
DATE: /°)_ ` \° \ l ')` United States District Judge

