Opinion
No. 07-7143.
Filed On: December 23, 2008.
BEFORE: Henderson, Brown, and Kavanaugh, Circuit Judges
ORDER
Upon consideration of the motions for summary affirmance, amicus' response thereto, the replies, and appellant's letter; and the motion for leave to file reply out of time, it is
ORDERED that the motion for leave to file reply out of time be granted. The Clerk is directed to file Loewinger Brand's lodged reply. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the motions for summary affirmance be granted. The merits of the parties' positions are so clear as to warrant summary action. See Taxpayers Watchdog, Inc. v. Stanley, 819 F.2d 294, 297 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (per curiam). The district court did not abuse its discretion in denying appellant's motion for extension of time and treating as conceded the discrimination and malicious prosecution claims against Loewinger Brand, the tort claims against Amar Sharma, and Jennifer Renton's motion to dismiss. Hussain v. Nicholson, 435 F.3d 359, 363 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (stating that this court is "especially reluctant to interfere with district court decisions regarding their own day-to-day operations");see also United States v. Microsoft Corp., 253 F.3d 34, 100 (D.C. Cir. 2001) ("`[A]n appellate court will not interfere with the trial court's exercise of its discretion to control its docket and dispatch its business . . . except upon the clearest showing that the procedures have resulted in actual and substantial prejudice to the complaining litigant.'" (quoting Eli Lilly Co., Inc. v. Generix Drug Sales, Inc., 460 F.2d 1096, 1105 (5th Cir. 1972))). Nor has appellant demonstrated that there was excusable neglect for her failure to raise the discrimination claims against the Sharmas in the state court proceedings or that the statute of limitations should be tolled. See Washington v. WMATA, 160 F.3d 750, 753 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (applying the court's equitable power to toll the statute of limitations "only in extraordinary and carefully circumscribed instances");Smith-Haynie v. District of Columbia, 155 F.3d 575, 579-80 (D.C. Cir. 1998). Neither appellant nor amicus has presented any argument why summary affirmance should not be granted as to the remaining claims.
Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc.See Fed.R.App.P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.