Albra v. Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College et al

MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim Under which Relief may be Granted, MOTION to Dismiss for Improper Venue, MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction

D.D.C.June 5, 2017

J:\7A600\Motion\Motion to Dismiss\MTD.doc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ADEM ALBRA, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI DADE COLLEGE, ET AL., Defendants Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00565-BAH DEFENDANT MIAMI-DADE COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE Defendant, the Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College (“MDC”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6), and Local Rule 7 of the Rules of the District Court for the District of Columbia, hereby moves for an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint (D.E. 1), with prejudice, and in support states: 1. Plaintiff is a disgruntled former MDC student who, after proper administrative proceedings, was expelled for threatening other students. In his Complaint, Plaintiff asserted four causes of action under the Administrative Procedure Act (the “APA”). 2. As demonstrated herein and in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, which is incorporated by reference herein, Plaintiff’s Complaint is woefully deficient and should be dismissed for several reasons: a. First, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over MDC, a state agency, for claims under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., which applies solely to federal agencies. Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 2 b. Second, Plaintiff’s claims fail because this District is without any basis to extend its personal jurisdiction over MDC, an agency based in Florida that has not conducted any of the alleged activities in this District. c. Third, venue is improper because MDC is based in Miami, Florida. d. Fourth, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief because the allegations are not against MDC. WHEREFORE, Defendant, the Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College, respectfully requests that this Court grant this Motion and dismiss all claims asserted against it, with prejudice. Defendant also requests such other and further relief that the Court deems appropriate. Date: June 5, 2017 /s/ Stephen M. Cornelius_______ STEPHEN M. CORNELIUS Fed. Bar No. 1021726 ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C. 1629 K. Street, NW Davis Building, Suite 260 Washington, DC 20006 202-857-1696 202-857-0762 (fax) Email: Cornelius@ewmd.com /s/ Suzanne A. Singer_______ SUZANNE A. SINGER* Florida Bar No. 946222 Email: ssinger@rumberger.com /s/ Nicole Sieb Smith_______ NICOLE SIEB SMITH* Florida Bar No. 017056 Email: nsmith@rumberger.com RUMBERGER, KIRK, & CALDWELL, P.A. A Professional Association Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000 80 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130-3037 Tel: 305.358.5577 Fax: 305.371.7580 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendant, Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 2 J:\7A600\Motion\Motion to Dismiss\Memo.doc UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ADEM ALBRA, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI DADE COLLEGE, ET AL., Defendants Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00565-BAH MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT MIAMI-DADE COLLEGE’S MOTION TO DISMISS Defendant, the Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College (“MDC”), pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), 12(b)(2), 12(b)(3), and 12(b)(6) and Local Rule 7 of the Rules of the District Court for the District of Columbia, hereby files this Memorandum supporting the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint and in support thereof respectfully states: TABLE OF CONTENTS INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CITED…………………………………………………………….. 1 I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................2 II. SUMMARY OF FACTS .....................................................................................................3 III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW ...............................................................................................3 A. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under Which Relief May Be Granted ....................3 B. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Claim Against Miami Dade College...................................................................................5 C. The Complaint Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction ....................7 D. Improper Venue Bar Plaintiff’s Claims ...................................................................9 IV. CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................10 INDEX OF AUTHORITIES CITED Cases Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) ....................................................................................... 3, 4 Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) .................................................................... 3 Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462 (1985) .................................................................. 8 Claasen v. Brown, B 1996 WL 79490 (Feb. 16, 1996) .................................................................. 9 Coalition for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d 193 (D.C. Cir. 2003) ........................ 6 Creighton Ltd. v. Qatar, 181 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1999) ................................................................ 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) ......................................................................................................................... 3 Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 10 2 Gowens v. Dyncorp, 132 F. Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2001) ............................................................... 7 Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9 (D.D.C. 2001) ........... 6 Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235 (1958) ....................................................................................... 8 Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192 (D.C. Cir. 1992) ...................................................... 6 Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945)........................................................................ 8 Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249 (D.C. Cir. 2005) ........................................ 6 Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375 (1994) ............................................................. 6 Meyer v. Reno, 911 F. Supp 11 (D.D.C. 1996) ............................................................................... 9 Mwabira-Simera v. Howard University, 692 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2010) ................................. 4 Ord v. Dist. of Columbia, 587 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2009) ............................................................ 5 Ouduah v. Quintera, 1990 W.L. 91552 (D.D.C. June 20, 1990) .................................................... 9 Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) .......................................................................... 9 Second Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521 (D.C. Cir. 2001) .......... 8 Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178 (D.C. Cir. 2006) ................................................... 4 Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490 (1975) ............................................................................................. 5 Worldwide Minerals, Ltd., v. Republic of Kazakhstahn, 116 F. Supp. 2d 98 (D.D.C. 2000) ......... 7 Statutes 28 U.S.C. § 1331 ............................................................................................................................. 7 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) ........................................................................................................................ 9 5 U.S.C. § 701 ............................................................................................................................. 3, 6 Fla. Stat. § 1000.01(3)..................................................................................................................... 6 Fla. Stat. § 1000.21(3)(o) ................................................................................................................ 6 Fla. Stat. § 1001.63 ......................................................................................................................... 7 Fla. Stat. 001.60(2).......................................................................................................................... 6 Rules DC Code § 13-423 .......................................................................................................................... 7 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1)............................................................................................................... 2, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2)................................................................................................................... 8 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3)................................................................................................................. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)............................................................................................................... 3, 5 Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1) ..................................................................................................................... 6 I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff is a disgruntled former MDC student who, after proper administrative proceedings, was expelled for threatening other students. Plaintiff’s Complaint is woefully deficient and should be dismissed for several reasons. First, Plaintiff’s Complaint is subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) because this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over MDC, a state agency, for claims under the Administrative Procedure Act Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 2 of 10 3 (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq., which applies solely to federal agencies. Second, Plaintiff’s claims fail because this District is without any basis to extend its personal jurisdiction over MDC, an agency based in Florida that has not conducted any of the alleged activities in this District. Third, venue is improper because MDC is based in Miami, Florida. Finally, Plaintiff’s claims are subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim for relief because the allegations are not against MDC. II. SUMMARY OF FACTS Plaintiff alleges that he was a student at MDC, School of Nursing, prior to his permanent expulsion on June 12, 2015. D.E. 1, ¶ 12. Plaintiff acknowledges that the expulsion was not for academic reasons, but based on Defendant’s assertions that Plaintiff made verbal statements that violated the student code of conduct. Id., ¶ 27. Plaintiff alleges that the disciplinary proceedings against him failed to provide him with due process and were generally unfair, arbitrary and capricious. Id., ¶¶ 36-42, 53-55. Based on the foregoing allegations, Plaintiff brings claims under the APA (Counts I-IV). III. MEMORANDUM OF LAW A. Plaintiff Fails to State a Claim Under Which Relief May Be Granted MDC further is entitled to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the APA because Plaintiff fails to state a claim. A complaint may be dismissed if the facts as plead fail to aver a claim for relief that is plausible on its face. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007). Ashcroft v. Iqbal, explained that the pleading requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a) “demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.” 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “The plausibility standard is not akin to a ‘probability requirement,’ but it asks for more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully.” Id. A plaintiff must plead “factual content that allows the court to draw the Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 3 of 10 4 reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. Consequently, a pleading that does nothing more than offer “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action” is insufficient to state a claim under Rule 8. Id. However, a court need not accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation, nor inferences that are unsupported by the facts set out in the complaint. Trudeau v. Fed. Trade Comm’n, 456 F.3d 178, 193 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citations omitted). A court is not limited to the allegations set forth in the complaint, but may consider “any documents either attached to or incorporated [by reference] in the complaint and matters of which [the court] may take judicial notice.” Id. at 183. This Court granted summary judgment in favor of Howard University for failure to state a claim. See Mwabira-Simera v. Howard University, 692 F. Supp. 2d 65 (D.D.C. 2010). In Mwabira-Simera, Howard University dismissed the plaintiff, a student, for poor academic performance. Id. at 68. Plaintiff sued the University as well as several other individuals alleging violations of, inter alia, the APA. Id. The court relied on the plain language of the APA, which provides for judicial review only against federal agencies. Id. at 70. This court found that neither the University nor the individual defendants were subject to suit under the APA because the University and the individuals were not federal agencies. Id. Moreover, the Complaint fails to set forth any specific allegations of wrongdoing against MDC. Instead, the allegations in Plaintiff’s four-count Complaint are nothing more than meandering recitations. For example, in Count I - Violation of the APA (Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed 5 U.S.C. § 706(1)), Count II - Violation of the APA (Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, not in accordance with law; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)), and Count IV - Violation of the APA (Without observance of procedure required by law; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D)), not only does Plaintiff fail to assert any allegations (let alone proper allegations) against MDC, but he also fails to even mention MDC anywhere in those counts. The only allegations under Counts I, Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 4 of 10 5 II, and IV are against Defendant Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”). D.E. 1, ¶ 50-51, 53-54, 61. Thus, MDC is left to guess how it violated the APA (which isn’t even applicable for the reasons stated supra Section III.A). Yet again, Plaintiff fails to state a cause of action against MDC in Count III - Violation of the APA (Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(B)). D.E. 1, ¶ 57-59. The bare bone allegations provide zero insight as to how MDC allegedly committed violations of the Act. The APA does not apply to MDC, a state college. Plaintiff’s Complaint is utterly devoid of any factual content that would allow this Court to draw an inference that MDC is liable. Without any substantive allegations against MDC, MDC cannot defend against Plaintiff’s allegations. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). B. The Court Lacks Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Plaintiff’s Claim Against Miami Dade College For the same reasons that the Complaint fails to state a claim, it also fails to confer the Court with subject matter jurisdiction because Defendant is not a federal agency subject to the purview of the Act. Where a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) makes a facial attack on the complaint, the reviewing court “must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint, and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party.” See Ord v. Dist. of Columbia, 587 F.3d 1136, 1140 (D.C. Cir. 2009), quoting Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 501 (1975). While a court “‘may in appropriate cases dispose of a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) on the complaint standing alone,’” “‘where necessary, the court may consider the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record, or the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court’s resolution of disputed facts.’” See Coalition for Underground Expansion v. Mineta, 333 F.3d Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 5 of 10 6 193, 198 (D.C. Cir. 2003), quoting Herbert v. Nat'l Acad. of Scis., 974 F.2d 192, 197 (D.C. Cir. 1992). See also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v. FDA, 402 F.3d 1249, 1253 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (“[T]he district court may consider materials outside the pleadings in deciding whether to grant a motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.”). Further, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(1) states a pleading must contain “a short and plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). The burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction rests on the Plaintiff. See Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (“Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction . . . It is to be presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, . . . and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted). See also Grand Lodge of Fraternal Order of Police v. Ashcroft, 185 F. Supp. 2d 9, 13 (D.D.C. 2001) (“Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction.”). The entirety of Plaintiff’s four-count Complaint is solely based on violations of the APA. D.E. 1, ¶ 14-16. However, Plaintiff misses the mark, as the plain language of the APA does not provide relief for a prospective plaintiff against a state actor. Instead, the APA applies only to agencies of the federal government. See 5 U.S.C. § 701(b)(1) (defining “agency” as “each authority of the Government of the United States,”) and 704 (providing for judicial review of “final agency action”). It is axiomatic that MDC is not a federal agency. The State of Florida has organized a “state system of schools, courses, classes, and educational institutions and services adequate to allow, for all Florida’s students, the opportunity to obtain a high quality education,” known as the Florida K-20 education system. Fla. Stat. § 1000.01(3). MDC is part of the K-20 education system. Id. § 1000.21(3)(o). MDC is also part of the Florida College System. Id. § 1001.60(2). Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 6 of 10 7 See also, Fla. Stat. § 1004.67. More importantly, Plaintiff concedes in his Complaint that MDC is a “political subdivision of the State of Florida.” D.E. 1, ¶ 13 (emphasis supplied). Plaintiff cannot end-run the APA where a federal agency does not exist for doing so. Because MDC is a part of the Florida College System, which is governed by Florida Statute section 1001.63, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over MDC for violations brought under the APA, which is an act that applies only to federal agencies. Consequently, this action must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. C. The Complaint Must Be Dismissed for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction Plaintiff has failed to allege any facts sufficient for this Court to find personal jurisdiction over MDC under the District of Columbia Long Arm Statute, DC Code § 13-423. Specifically, Plaintiff has not alleged that his claims arise from MDC’s transacting business in the District of Columbia (DC Code § 13-423(a)(1)), or that MDC has caused tortious injury in the District of Columbia under DC Code § 13-423(a)(3) or (4). The burden is on the plaintiff to establish that the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant and must aver the specific basis for attaching personal jurisdiction. See Gowens v. Dyncorp, 132 F. Supp. 2d 38, 40 (D.D.C. 2001). Plaintiff’s burden includes the requirement to allege specifically “a significant connection between the claim and the alleged contact with the forum,” Worldwide Minerals, Ltd., v. Republic of Kazakhstahn, 116 F. Supp. 2d 98, 106 (D.D.C. 2000). Plaintiff has failed to allege any basis upon which the Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over MDC. Plaintiff’s single allegation regarding jurisdiction states, “This Court has authority to review final agency action under the [APA]. Jurisdiction over actions seeking such review is provided by 28 U.S.C. § 1331.” D.E. 1, ¶ 18. Plaintiff has not alleged that the APA violations occurred in the District of Columbia or that any tortious acts took place in the District. Not only has Plaintiff failed to allege any connection with the forum, let alone a significant Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 7 of 10 8 connection required to the District of Columbia’s law. See, e.g., Second Amendment Found. v. U.S. Conference of Mayors, 274 F.3d 521, 523 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (discussions at meetings in the District were insufficient contacts to establish personal jurisdiction). Even assuming arguendo, that Plaintiff had sufficiently plead personal jurisdiction under D.C.’s Long Arm Statute, this Court would nonetheless have to evaluate whether “maintenance of the suit [would] offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Int’l Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945). The test depends on whether Plaintiff has shown that MDC has “purposely [availed itself] of the privilege of conducting activities with the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws.” Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). The rationale behind this “purposeful availment requirement” protects defendants from being “haled into a jurisdiction solely as a result of random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts or of the unilateral activity of another party or a third person.” Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475 (1985). This Court has decided that the due process test is not satisfied when the parties’ conduct occurs substantially outside the forum. See Creighton Ltd. v. Qatar, 181 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 1999). Plaintiff’s failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction deprives this Court of personal jurisdiction under the APA. Here, MDC’s conduct has not only occurred substantially outside the forum, but rather MDC’s conduct completely has occurred outside the forum. Simply put, MDC never has conducted any activity in the District of Columbia that would lend itself to attach personal jurisdiction in this suit. MDC is based in Miami, Florida and is a Florida public agency. Plaintiff’s failure to connect this District to MDC’s activity giving rise to his claims is fatal to the personal jurisdiction of this Court. Thus, the Complaint must be dismissed for lack of personal jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(2). Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 8 of 10 9 D. Improper Venue Bar Plaintiff’s Claims The Complaint also must be dismissed because Plaintiff has brought this claim against MDC in the wrong venue. Venue is permitted only in the judicial district where any defendant resides if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located or a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim took place or where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action was commenced. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). It is well established in the District of Columbia that a complaint will be dismissed for improper venue where the defendants do not reside within the District. See Claasen v. Brown, B 1996 WL 79490 (Feb. 16, 1996) (Kessler, J) (dismissing for lack of venue under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because the individually sued defendants did not reside and could not be found within the District of Columbia); Meyer v. Reno, 911 F. Supp 11, 14-15 (D.D.C. 1996) (same); Ouduah v. Quintera, 1990 W.L. 91552 (D.D.C. June 20, 1990) (Sporkin, J) (same). MDC does not reside inside in the District of Columbia. Also, none of the events giving rise to this claim took place in the District. Moreover, this Court should dismiss the Complaint under the doctrine of Forum Non Conveniens. See Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235 (1981) (stating that the forum non conveniens doctrine allows the court to dismiss a case even if it is a permissible venue and has proper jurisdiction if it determines that there is an adequate alternate forum for resolving the dispute and the ends of justice would be better served by dismissing the action). Even if the District of Columbia were a permissible venue (which it is not), the doctrine weighs heavily in favor of dismissal because Plaintiff himself has launched civil litigation over the same factual disputes in Southern District of Florida. See D.E. 1, ¶ 9. Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 9 of 10 10 Because MDC resides outside this District and is not subject to personal jurisdiction for the reasons stated supra Section III.C, the Complaint should be dismissed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3). IV. CONCLUSION Based on the foregoing facts, Plaintiff’s Complaint is facially deficient. First, this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction or personal jurisdiction. Second, venue is improper in the District of Columbia. Third, the complaint is nothing more than a formulaic recitation of facts and fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Thus, Plaintiff’s Complaint must be dismissed in its entirety. WHEREFORE, Defendant, The Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College, respectfully requests the Court to enter an Order dismissing Plaintiff’s Complaint with prejudice and granting any and all further relief that this Court deems is just and equitable. Date: June 5, 2017 /s/ Stephen M. Cornelius_______ STEPHEN M. CORNELIUS Fed. Bar No. 1021726 ECCLESTON & WOLF, P.C. 1629 K. Street, NW Davis Building, Suite 260 Washington, DC 20006 202-857-1696 202-857-0762 (fax) Email: Cornelius@ewmd.com /s/ Suzanne A. Singer_______ SUZANNE A. SINGER* Florida Bar No. 946222 Email: ssinger@rumberger.com /s/ Nicole Sieb Smith_______ NICOLE SIEB SMITH* Florida Bar No. 017056 Email: nsmith@rumberger.com RUMBERGER, KIRK, & CALDWELL, P.A. A Professional Association Brickell City Tower, Suite 3000 80 Southwest 8th Street Miami, Florida 33130-3037 Tel: 305.358.5577 Fax: 305.371.7580 *Admitted Pro Hac Vice Attorneys for Defendant, Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-1 Filed 06/05/17 Page 10 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIVIL DIVISION ADEM ALBRA, Plaintiff v. BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MIAMI DADE COLLEGE, ET AL., Defendants Civil Action No.: 1:17-cv-00565-BAH ORDER Upon consideration of Defendant, the Board of Trustees of Miami Dade College’s (“MDC”) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice, any opposition hereto, and the entire record in this case, it is this _____ day of __________________ 2017, hereby ORDERED that Defendant MDC’s Motion to Dismiss is hereby GRANTED; and it is further ORDERED that all claims against Defendant MDC in Plaintiff’s Complaint are hereby dismissed, with prejudice. _________________________________ Chief Judge Beryl A. Howell Copies furnished to: Adem Albra, ademalbra@hotmail.com Nicole Smith, Esq., nsmith@rumberger.com Suzanne Singer, Esq., ssinger@rumberger.com Stephen M. Cornelius, cornelius@ewmd.com Jeremy Simon, Esq., Jeremy.simon@usddoj.gov, SByrd@usa.doj.gov Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-2 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 1 J:\7A600\Motion\Motion to Dismiss\MTD.doc CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on this day of June 5, 2017, a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint with Prejudice, with accompanying Memorandum of Points and Authorities, were served via CM/ECF, to: Mr. Adem Albra 860 NE 34th Street Fort Lauderdale, FL 33334 Email: ademalbra@hotmail.com Plaintiff Jeremy S. Simon Assistant United States Attorney 555 Fourth Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20530 Attorney for Federal Defendants /s/ Stephen M. Cornelius_________ Stephen M. Cornelius Fed. Bar No. 1021726 Case 1:17-cv-00565-BAH Document 23-3 Filed 06/05/17 Page 1 of 1