is denied. IV. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the defendant’s motion for a ruling and for reconsideration. An order consistent with this Memorandum Opinion is separately and contemporaneously issued this 30th day of August, 2004. 1 . The Calendar Committee for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia reassigned the case to this court in November 2003. 2 . Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). 3 . Judge Johnson held that, "[u]pon consideration of the motion of the defendants, United States, and Michael Hartman, et ah, for summary judgment and the response thereto, the Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. There are material facts in dispute. The most significant are the Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>); Addington v. Farmer’s Elevator Mutual Ins.
holding that the trial court did not violate due process in considering the defendants motion to dismiss because the defendant had corrected its error in not serving its motion to dismiss on the plaintiff and because the plaintiff had received adequate time to consider and respond to the arguments made in the motion holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment holding that the court implicitly denied the plaintiffs motion to strike certain submissions because the court in its opinion granting defendants motion to dismiss relied on defendants materials holding that the trial court erred by granting the defendants motion to dismiss holding that where the trial court implicitly denied the defendants motion to suppress but neither expressly denied the motion nor explained its ruling claim of error could not be reviewed