In the Matter of the Petition by
KAREEM BOWIE
8150 S. Euclid Ave.
at
P.S.
Docket No. WM 02-490
APPEARANCE FOR PETITIONER:
Kareem Bowie
APPEARANCE FOR RESPONDENT:
J. Patrick Tyrell
Corporate Law Section
475 L'Enfant Plaza SW, Room 6332
DECISION ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Mr. Bowie filed a Petition in November 2002, after receiving a Notice of Withholding Mail, dated October 25, 2002, from the Postal Inspection Service. The Notice alleged that Petitioner was using false names and/or addresses in violating mail fraud statutes, 18 U.S.C. §1341 and §1342.
Respondent filed an Answer on November 18, 2002, and Petitioner filed a reply. One telephone conference was held with the parties, on December 16, 2002, and some effort was made to resolve this case by mutual agreement. This was unsuccessful and, On January 3, 2003, Respondent filed a Motion for Summary Judgment, arguing that there were no material facts in dispute. Specifically, in the Answer and in the Motion, Respondent alleged that Petitioner was using several false addresses in carrying out a scheme to defraud the parents of college students in Illinois by sending false invoices to the parents for services purportedly rendered to the students.
On February 20, 2003, Respondent filed a Motion for Stay, stating that Petitioner had been indicted in United States District Court for the Southern District of Illinois on criminal charges based on the same facts that were the subject of the mail withholding. Petitioner replied, but made no persuasive argument against the stay. Accordingly, the Motion for Stay was granted on May 8, 2003, and further action on this remained suspended for many months to await the conclusion of the related criminal case.
On December 9, 2004, Respondent filed copies of District Court documents showing Petitioner’s conviction and sentencing on seven counts of mail fraud. Respondent’s attorney also attached a copy of his December 9, 2004 letter to Petitioner, asking that Petitioner withdraw his Petition so that this case could be dismissed. By Order dated December 15, 2004, Petitioner was directed to reply by January 5, 2005, stating his intention regarding Respondent’s proposal. Petitioner filed no reply.
On February 17, 2005, Respondent filed a Motion to Dismiss on the grounds that Petitioner, having not replied to the December 15, 2004 Order and having filed nothing in this case since May 2003, has failed to prosecute his case. In the alternative, Respondent asked that the Motion for Summary Judgment be granted. Petitioner was given an opportunity to reply to the motion but did not do so.
Based on Petitioner’s failure to reply to the December 15, 2004 Order and failure to file any opposition to the Motion to Dismiss, Respondent’s motion is granted and the Petition is hereby dismissed.
Bruce R. Houston
Chief Administrative Law Judge