Skip to main content
D.C. Circuit· 11/30/2004

Fox v. American Airlines, Inc.

Citations

  • 389 F.3d 1291
  • 363 U.S. App. D.C. 459
  • 2004 U.S. App. LEXIS 24651

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that a plaintiff’s failure to respond to a motion to dismiss permits the court to treat the motion as conceded
  • holding that the district court has discretion whether to treat a motion as conceded
  • holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion by applying a \straightforward\ application of Local Rule 7(b) in granting as conceded the defendant's motion to dismiss when the plaintiffs failed to oppose it
  • observing that “[requiring [the trial court] to provide notice, an opportunity to explain and weigh alternatives before enforcing Rule 7(b) would hinder effective docket management”
  • observing that “[r]equiring [the trial court] to provide 13 notice, an opportunity to explain and weigh alternatives before enforcing Rule 7(b) would hinder effective docket management”
  • “Requiring [the court] to provide notice, [and] an opportunity to explain and weigh alternatives before enforcing Rule 7(b) would hinder effective docket management.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Henderson, Roberts, Sentelle

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.