advance several arguments in favor of dismissal of these claims. Plaintiffs do not address the arguments. Instead, they ask the Court to dismiss the federal law claims without prejudice and allow Plaintiffs to file a Second Amended Complaint. For the reasons provided below, the Court denies leave to amend. Furthermore, because Plaintiffs utterly failed to address the arguments relating to the merits of the federal law claims, the Court dismisses those claims with prejudice. See Figueroa v. U.S. Postal Serv., 422 F.Supp.2d 866, 879 (N.D.Ohio 2006) (viewing the failure to respond to arguments in a motion to dismiss as a concession that the claim fails as a matter of law); Scognamillo v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, No. 03-2061, 2005 WL 2045807, at *11 (N.D.Cal. Aug.25, 2005) (<HOLDING>). 3. State Law Claims The fourth count of the
holding that plaintiffs failure to respond to argument warranted dismissal with prejudice holding dismissal with prejudice is appropriate remedy for failure to timely file undertaking holding that dismissal with prejudice is warranted where case delayed for more than a few months holding that proper remedy for failure to exhaust is dismissal of the claim without prejudice holding that absent extraordinary circumstances a failure to comply with the statute requires a dismissal with prejudice