Judge Royce Lamberth of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia poses a rhetorical question

What duties do an opposing counsel and an opposing party owe to their opponent in a litigation? That is the question Oluwarotimi Odutola raises in his present prose lawsuit against the opposing lawyer and party in his prior lawsuit against Branch Banking and Trust Company (“BB&T”), where Mr. Odutola used to work. He filed his first lawsuit against BB&T alleging discrimination and retaliation. Now, he argues that BB&T as well as its lawyer, Robert P. Floyd,
III, committed fraud, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breaches of the D.C. Rules of Professional Conduct during the discovery process of that first lawsuit. The defendants have moved to dismiss Mr. Odutola’s present lawsuit, arguing that Mr. Odutola does not state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

It has now come to this Court’s attention that Mr. Odutola has failed to adequately invoke this Court’s subject-matter jurisdiction. On that basis, the Court, sua sponte, will DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE Mr. Odutola’s present lawsuit.

The problem

Mr. Odutola does not adequately allege any form of subject-matter jurisdiction. Even liberally construing his complaint and reviewing the record, the Court is not satisfied that it has jurisdictional authority over his lawsuit.

The claims involving fraud and the rules governing lawyers are state not federal matters. (Mike Frisch)