Justia Civil Procedure Opinion Summaries

Several individuals challenged the validity of the District of Columbia’s Anti-SLAPP Act, which provides defendants in certain lawsuits—those deemed “strategic lawsuits against public participation” (SLAPPs)—with a special motion to dismiss and limits discovery in those cases. The challengers argued that the D.C. Council exceeded its authority under the Home Rule Act by enacting the Anti-SLAPP Act, claiming that its discovery-limiting provisions impermissibly intruded on the procedural rules governing the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, which are set by Title 11 of the D.C. Code.A division of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals previously agreed with the challengers, holding that the Anti-SLAPP Act’s discovery provisions violated the Home Rule Act by interfering with Title 11’s mandate that the Superior Court follow the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, except as modified by the courts themselves. The division’s decision was subsequently vacated when the full court granted en banc review.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals, sitting en banc, reversed the division’s decision. The court held that the D.C. Council did not exceed its authority under the Home Rule Act by passing the Anti-SLAPP Act. The court reasoned that the Act does not amend Title 11, does not alter the organization or jurisdiction of the District’s courts, does not divest the courts of their rulemaking authority, and does not fundamentally change the court system. Instead, the Act supplements procedures for a limited subset of cases in a manner consistent with Title 11. The court concluded that the Council’s broad legislative authority includes the power to enact such laws, and that the Anti-SLAPP Act does not violate the Home Rule Act. The case was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. View "Banks v. Hoffman" on Justia Law

Three former employees of the District of Columbia Department of Forensic Sciences were terminated as part of a reduction in force. They appealed their terminations to the Office of Employee Appeals (OEA), which upheld the terminations in separate orders issued in August 2023. The OEA’s decisions became final in October 2023, and the employees were required to file petitions for judicial review in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia within thirty days. However, each employee filed their petition more than two months after the deadline, attributing the delay to their union counsel’s failure to file timely and seeking extensions based on excusable neglect.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia reviewed each petition. In Ms. Gilliam’s case, the court ruled that the thirty-day deadline was mandatory and could not be extended for excusable neglect. In Ms. Washington’s case, the court similarly found the deadline mandatory but also ruled, in the alternative, that she had not shown excusable neglect. In Ms. Ruiz-Reyes’s case, the court did not address whether the deadline was mandatory, instead finding that she had not established excusable neglect.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that the thirty-day deadline for seeking Superior Court review of OEA decisions can be extended upon a showing of excusable neglect. The court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Ms. Ruiz-Reyes’s petition, finding no abuse of discretion in the determination that she had not shown excusable neglect. However, the court vacated the dismissals of Ms. Gilliam’s and Ms. Washington’s petitions and remanded those cases for further proceedings, instructing the Superior Court to reconsider the excusable neglect issue without relying on an erroneous finding of prejudice to the agency. View "Gilliam v. D.C. Department of Forensic Sciences" on Justia Law

In this case, a condominium unit was sold at a foreclosure sale in 2014 to Tyroshi Investments after the original owner defaulted on both her mortgage and condominium assessments. The condominium association conducted the sale, and Tyroshi subsequently rented out the unit. In 2015, the mortgage and deed of trust were transferred to U.S. Bank, which then initiated its own judicial foreclosure and purchased the unit at a second sale in 2016. Both Tyroshi and U.S. Bank recorded their deeds at different times, and for a period, Tyroshi’s tenants continued to occupy the unit while U.S. Bank paid taxes and assessments. In 2020, Tyroshi was denied access to the unit, leading to litigation over rightful ownership.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia held a bench trial and determined that U.S. Bank’s claims to quiet title and invalidate the 2014 foreclosure sale were timely, applying a fifteen-year statute of limitations for actions “for the recovery of lands” under D.C. Code § 12-301(a)(1). The court declared the 2014 sale invalid and found U.S. Bank to be the legal owner. Tyroshi appealed, arguing that the claims were untimely.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the fifteen-year limitations period applies only to possessory actions, such as ejectment or adverse possession, not to claims like wrongful foreclosure or breach of contract, which are subject to shorter limitations periods. The court found that U.S. Bank’s claims were time-barred, except for a portion of its unjust enrichment claim related to payments made within three years of the suit. The appellate court reversed the trial court’s judgment and remanded for consideration of the unjust enrichment claim. View "Tyroshi Investments, LLC v. U.S. Bank, NA, Successor Trustee to LaSalle Bank NA" on Justia Law

The appellant alleged that, after attending Long Island University and New York University and repaying her student loans, her name was fraudulently used in 1993 to certify additional federal student loans without her consent. She claimed that the universities signed her name on false loan applications, withheld refunds, and that the United States Department of Education attempted to collect on these fraudulent loans through debt collectors who used unlawful practices. The Department of Education ultimately garnished her tax refund and threatened to garnish her Social Security checks. The appellant filed suit against the Department of Education, the universities, the debt collectors, and others.The United States District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the claims against the universities and debt collectors for lack of personal jurisdiction, relying on the government-contacts exception. The court dismissed claims against other defendants on different grounds. On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the other defendants but, regarding the dismissal based on the government-contacts exception, certified questions to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals about the scope of that exception under District law.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals held that, under the District’s long-arm statute, the government-contacts exception to personal jurisdiction applies only if a defendant can establish that asserting jurisdiction based on the conduct at issue would violate the First Amendment. The court clarified that its prior decision in Rose v. Silver is binding and limits the exception to circumstances implicating First Amendment rights, even if this interpretation is arguably in tension with an earlier case, Environmental Research International, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc. The court declined to address whether the contacts alleged in this case fell within the exception, as that would depend on a First Amendment analysis. View "N'Jai v. U.S. Department of Education" on Justia Law

The case involves the District of Columbia's Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) claims against Facebook, Inc. stemming from the Cambridge Analytica data leak. In 2018, it was revealed that Cambridge Analytica had improperly obtained data from millions of Facebook users through a third-party application developed by Aleksandr Kogan. The District of Columbia alleged that Facebook violated the CPPA by unintentionally misleading consumers about data accessibility to third-party applications, Facebook's enforcement capabilities, and failing to disclose the data breach in a timely manner.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia granted summary judgment in favor of Facebook, concluding that the District had to prove its CPPA claims by clear and convincing evidence. The court found that Facebook's disclosures were accurate and that no reasonable consumer could have been misled. Additionally, the court excluded the testimony of the District's expert witness, Dr. Florian Schaub, criticizing his analytical methods and analysis.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that CPPA claims based on unintentional misrepresentations need only be proved by a preponderance of the evidence, not by clear and convincing evidence. The court reversed the trial court's summary judgment decision and remanded the case for reconsideration under the correct burden of proof. The appellate court also reversed the trial court's exclusion of Dr. Schaub's testimony, finding that the trial court's reasoning was insufficient and remanded for further analysis and explanation.The main holding of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals is that CPPA claims based on unintentional misrepresentations require proof by a preponderance of the evidence, and the exclusion of expert testimony must be supported by a thorough analysis consistent with the standards set forth in Motorola Inc. v. Murray. View "District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc." on Justia Law

Lezah Roberts entered into a fixed-price contract with Advanced Building Design, a Maryland-based firm, to build a handicap-accessible addition to her home in the District of Columbia. The project, which began in 2017 and was expected to take six months, remained unfinished nearly two years later. The project went over budget due to price increases and change orders, and Advanced sought to recoup these overages from Roberts. After initially agreeing to cover some additional costs, Roberts eventually refused to pay further increases, leading Advanced to cease work on the project. Roberts then filed a complaint in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and a claim under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) for unfair trade practices.The Superior Court granted Advanced’s motion to dismiss Roberts’s suit, citing a mandatory forum selection clause in the contract that designated Maryland as the exclusive forum for litigation. Roberts appealed, arguing that the forum selection clause was unenforceable because it conflicted with the CPPA and was unconscionable.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and disagreed with Roberts on both counts. The court held that the CPPA does not preclude parties from selecting their preferred forum and that the forum selection clause did not contravene public policy or demonstrate procedural or substantive unconscionability. Consequently, the court affirmed the Superior Court’s dismissal of Roberts’s complaint. View "Roberts v. Advanced Building Design" on Justia Law

In this case, Michael Patrick Murray and other plaintiffs, who either suffer from brain tumors or represent estates of decedents who died from brain cancer, sued Motorola, Inc. and other telecommunications companies. They alleged that long-term exposure to cell phone radiation caused their health issues. The litigation began in 2001 and has been through multiple appeals. In a previous decision, the court allowed the litigation to proceed, and in another, it changed the evidentiary standard for admitting expert testimony from the "general acceptance" test to the "reliability" test.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia, post-remand, denied the plaintiffs' motions for additional discovery and to add new experts, struck portions of their supplemental expert reports, excluded all of their expert testimony under Rule 702, and granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants. The trial judges ruled that the plaintiffs failed to provide admissible expert testimony on general causation, which was necessary to proceed with the case.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court's decisions. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the trial judges' rulings on discovery and expert testimony. The court held that the trial judges correctly applied the legal principles and managed the discovery process appropriately. The appellate court also agreed that the plaintiffs failed to meet the standards set out in Rule 702 for their expert testimony, and thus, summary judgment for the defendants was appropriate. View "Murray v. Motorola, Inc." on Justia Law

The case involves a dispute within the Unification Church, also known as the Unification Movement, following a schism and succession conflict. The plaintiffs, including the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International, filed a complaint in 2011 against defendants, including Unification Church International (UCI) and its president, Hyun Jin (Preston) Moon. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants engaged in actions contrary to the church's mission, including amending UCI's articles of incorporation and transferring assets to entities like the Kingdom Investments Foundation (KIF) and the Global Peace Foundation (GPF).The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, finding that the defendants' actions were inconsistent with UCI's original purposes. However, the court's decision was reversed on appeal in Moon III, where it was held that resolving the plaintiffs' claims would require deciding disputed religious questions, making them nonjusticiable under the First Amendment's religious abstention doctrine. The case was remanded for further proceedings.On remand, the trial court dismissed the remaining claims with prejudice. The court found that the plaintiffs lacked special interest standing to pursue their self-dealing claims against Preston Moon after Moon III, as the claims no longer involved extraordinary measures threatening UCI's existence. The court also determined that the contract claims were nonjusticiable under the religious abstention doctrine, as resolving them would require interpreting religious terms and doctrines. The court declined to apply the potential fraud or collusion exception to the religious abstention doctrine, finding no evidence of bad faith for secular purposes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's orders, agreeing that the plaintiffs' claims were nonjusticiable and that they lacked special interest standing. The court also upheld the trial court's decision to deny the plaintiffs' motion to reopen discovery, finding no abuse of discretion. The litigation, which spanned over a decade, was thereby brought to a close. View "Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International v. Moon" on Justia Law

G.W. was taken into custody in the District of Columbia on a delinquency matter. Although released in that matter, the trial court ordered his detention under the Interstate Compact for Juveniles (ICJ) to be picked up by Virginia authorities on a different juvenile matter. When Virginia authorities did not take custody, the trial court dismissed the ICJ matter, but the District of Columbia Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services (DYRS) continued to detain G.W., interpreting the ICJ to require detention until all of G.W.'s juvenile matters in the District were resolved or until Virginia took custody or consented to his release.G.W. filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus, arguing that DYRS had no authority under the ICJ to detain him once Virginia failed to take custody. DYRS opposed the petition, citing ICJ rules and an advisory opinion by the Interstate Commission for Juveniles. The Superior Court of the District of Columbia denied the petition, relying on the advisory opinion that interpreted the ICJ rules to require detention until charges in the holding state were resolved or there was consent from the demanding state.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case. Since the trial court's ruling, the Commission withdrew the advisory opinion, and both the Commission and the District of Columbia conceded that the ICJ rules did not require G.W.'s detention. The Court of Appeals agreed, holding that ICJ Rule 7-103 did not address detention and that ICJ Rule 6-102.2 required detention only until the demanding state returned the juvenile or the time period for doing so expired. Consequently, the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Superior Court. View "In re G.W." on Justia Law

Matthew Bare sued his former employer, Rainforest Alliance, Inc., in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia, alleging that the company failed to pay him a redundancy settlement after his position was made redundant due to a reorganization. Bare claimed that he had agreed to resign in exchange for the settlement, which was contingent upon his execution of a release-of-claims agreement. However, after Bare made critical comments about the company, Rainforest Alliance terminated him and refused to pay the settlement, leading to claims of breach of contract and violation of the District of Columbia Wage Payment and Collection Law.The Superior Court dismissed Bare's complaint with prejudice, agreeing with Rainforest Alliance that Bare had failed to allege the occurrence of a condition precedent—specifically, the execution of a release agreement. The court found that without alleging this, Bare could not claim he had earned the redundancy payment under the contract or the wage law. Bare had argued that the issue of the condition precedent was a factual matter for summary judgment or trial and that Rainforest Alliance had waived the condition by not providing a release agreement. He also requested leave to amend his complaint if the motion to dismiss was granted.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that the trial court should have granted Bare's request to amend his complaint. The appellate court found that Bare's request to amend was his first, the case had been pending for a short time, there was no evidence of bad faith or dilatory motives, and there was no prejudice to Rainforest Alliance. The court also determined that Bare's proposed amendment, which would include allegations that Rainforest Alliance waived the condition precedent by not providing a release agreement, was not futile. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "Bare v. Rainforest Alliance, Inc." on Justia Law