An attorney who had filed a lawsuit against an employer which was defended by a law firm had that suit transferred from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to the Eastern District of North Carolina.

That suit was eventually voluntarily dismissed.

The attorney then sued the law firm in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.

The court (Judge Moss) dismissed one count and declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining allegations.

One allegation in particular stands out

The third incident is the most difficult to parse, but Jones appears to allege that Ogletree is responsible for a racist attack on a historic Black church in Washington, D.C., as well as the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol. Jones alleges that in October 2020, while Campbell University was attempting to schedule Jones’s deposition and the independent medical examination, Jones appeared in a YouTube video clip at the Ashbury United Methodist Church. Ogletree then “publicized” this video by filing it on the docket in the Employment Action, Dkt. 1 at 32 (Compl. ¶ 88), and nearly two months later, on December 12, 2020, a “white-male mob angered by the federal election results descended upon” the church, id. at 32 (Compl. ¶ 93). The mob tore down and burned the church’s Black Lives Matter banner. Id. at 32–33 (Compl. ¶ 93). Jones reasons that Ogletree is responsible because Ogletree publicized the video of Jones at the church two months earlier, and the perpetrators were “associated with the ideology promoted by” Ogletree. Id. at 33 (Compl. ¶ 95). Jones further alleges that Ogletree’s “plan” “culminat[ed]” in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol. Id. at 37 (Compl. ¶ 111). Jones claims that Ogletree’s efforts to promote violent conduct and threats directed at the Asbury United Methodist Church and the U.S. Capitol violated the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress, and violated the D.C. Bias-Related Crimes Act, D.C. Code § 22-3701 et seq. Dkt. 1 at 36–39, 45–47 (Compl. ¶¶ 103–16, 131–44).

Based on these incidents, Jones asserts one federal and five D.C. law causes of action against Ogletree: discrimination and conspiracy to interfere with civil rights, in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1985(2) and (3) (Count I); fraud/false pretenses, in violation of D.C. common law (Count II); tortious interference with settlement contract, in violation of D.C. common law (Count III); tortious interference with physician-patient contract, in violation of D.C. common law (Count IV); intentional infliction of emotional distress, in violation of D.C. common law (Count V); and bias-related conspiracy, theft, conversion of private property, and extortion, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-3701 et seq. (Count VI). Dkt. 1 at 36–47 (Compl. ¶¶ 103–44). Jones asserts that the Court has federal jurisdiction over his § 1985 claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and that the Court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over his related state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367. Dkt. 1 at 12 (Compl. ¶¶ 23–24).

The federal claim

Were this a case in which the defendant had identified technical pleading deficiencies or in which the plaintiff had identified additional facts that might fill a critical gap in the complaint, the Court would grant leave to amend. Here, however, Jones—an experienced lawyer—offers no reason whatsoever to believe that § 1985 provides an appropriate vehicle to relitigate discovery and related disputes from a case that, at Jones’s request, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina dismissed four years ago.

The Court, accordingly, concludes that Jones’s § 1985 claim should be dismissed with prejudice.

(Mike Frisch)