Justia District of Columbia Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

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

Linda Jenkins was injured when she slipped and fell on a wet floor being mopped by an employee of Red Coats, Inc. She did not see a wet floor sign in the area and suffered neck, back, and leg injuries. Jenkins sued Jemal’s Atlantic, LLC, and LPC Commercial Services, Inc. for negligence, but the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, a decision which was affirmed on appeal. Jenkins also sued Red Coats for negligence and negligent hiring, training, retention, and supervision. The trial court dismissed the latter claim, and this dismissal was affirmed on appeal. For the negligence claim, the trial court granted summary judgment for Red Coats, stating Jenkins needed expert testimony to establish the standard of care.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially granted summary judgment for Red Coats, stating Jenkins needed expert testimony to establish the standard of care. This decision was vacated and remanded for further consideration. On remand, the trial court reaffirmed its decision, concluding that expert testimony was necessary because the actions Red Coats should have taken beyond placing a wet floor sign were beyond the understanding of an average layperson.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court abused its discretion. The appellate court held that in typical slip and fall cases, laypeople do not require expert assistance to determine if a warning was adequate. The court concluded that a jury could evaluate whether Red Coats exercised reasonable care in warning passersby of the hazard caused by the wet floor based on common knowledge and everyday experience. Therefore, Jenkins’s failure to provide expert testimony was not fatal to her claim. The judgment of the Superior Court was vacated, and the case was remanded for trial. View "Jenkins v. Red Coats, Inc." 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 MP PPH, LLC, the owner of the Marbury Plaza apartment complex in Washington, D.C., which was found in contempt by the Superior Court of the District of Columbia for failing to comply with a consent order. The consent order was designed to address severe housing code violations, including pest infestations, mold, broken air conditioning, lack of heat, unsecured doors, leaks, and major plumbing issues. The trial court ordered a 50% rent abatement for all tenants, retroactive to the latest possible date by which MP PPH had agreed to complete the consent order’s requirements.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia initially denied the District of Columbia’s motion for contempt, finding that MP PPH had made good faith efforts to comply. However, upon a renewed motion, the court held a three-day evidentiary hearing and found MP PPH in contempt, citing extensive noncompliance with the consent order. The court noted that MP PPH had failed to conduct proper mold assessments, complete necessary repairs, and provide pest control services, among other violations. The court imposed sanctions, including a 50% rent abatement for all tenants, increasing to 60% and then 75% if compliance was not achieved within specified timeframes.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and affirmed the trial court’s contempt finding and sanctions. The appellate court found that the evidence of MP PPH’s contempt was overwhelming and that the trial court was not required to follow a three-step contempt process as argued by MP PPH. The court also held that the trial court’s sanctions did not interfere with the discretion of courts presiding over related landlord-tenant cases and that any improper reference to the wealth of MP PPH’s principal was harmless. The appellate court concluded that MP PPH had forfeited many of its arguments on appeal by not raising them in a timely manner before the trial court. View "MP PPH, LLC v. District of Columbia" on Justia Law

In this case, 4022 Georgia Avenue, LLC (4022 LLC) acquired a townhouse in Washington, D.C., in April 2018, which it later sold in two units in 2020. In June 2021, the new owners reported significant structural issues, leading to an inspection by the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (DCRA). DCRA issued an order to correct (December OTC) to 4022 LLC in December 2021, directing it to address various building code violations. 4022 LLC appealed the order, arguing it could not comply without the cooperation of the new owners.The Office of Administrative Hearings (OAH) held a hearing in April 2024 and issued a final order in May 2024, affirming the December OTC. OAH found that 4022 LLC's appeal did not meet the criteria for appeals under the relevant regulations, as it did not specify which provisions of the building code were incorrectly interpreted or applied. OAH also found that 4022 LLC was responsible for the violations due to its warranty obligations under the Condominium Act.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and held that OAH did not err in its findings. The court concluded that 4022 LLC's failure to identify specific provisions of the building code in its appeal constituted a failure to comply with the criteria for appeals. The court also found that OAH's reliance on the Property Maintenance Code, instead of the Building Code, did not constitute reversible error, as the criteria for appeals were substantively similar. Finally, the court held that OAH did not err in finding 4022 LLC responsible for the violations, as substantial evidence supported this finding based on the LLC's warranty obligations.The court affirmed OAH's order, upholding the December OTC and the requirement for 4022 LLC to address the building code violations. View "4022 Georgia Avenue v. Department of Buildings" on Justia Law

D.W. was convicted of several firearm offenses and appealed his convictions, arguing that the trial court erroneously denied his motion to suppress evidence. The incident occurred when officers from the Metropolitan Police Department Crime Suppression Team (CST) were patrolling the Geraldine Apartment Complex, known for high crime. D.W. fled upon seeing the officers, leading to a chase during which he discarded a firearm. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, crediting the officers' testimony about the high-crime nature of the area and concluding that D.W.'s flight provided reasonable suspicion for the stop.The Superior Court of the District of Columbia found that the officers' testimony about the Geraldine being a high-crime area was credible and sufficient, despite the lack of specific crime statistics. The court also found that D.W.'s immediate and headlong flight upon seeing the officers, without any provocation, indicated consciousness of guilt. Consequently, the court ruled that the officers had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop D.W. and denied the motion to suppress. D.W. was subsequently found guilty at a stipulated trial.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case, focusing on the general locational crime evidence and D.W.'s flight. The court applied the principles from its en banc decision in Mayo v. United States, which emphasized the need for specific and well-grounded evidence of crime in the area and the context of flight. The court found that the general locational crime evidence in this case was weak and did not provide useful context. Additionally, the court held that unprovoked flight alone, without more, does not justify a stop. Therefore, the court vacated the judgment of the Superior Court and remanded the case for further proceedings. View "D.W. v. United States" on Justia Law

In 2004, Gregory Terrell was convicted by a jury of assault with intent to kill while armed (AWIKWA), aggravated assault while armed (AAWA), and related offenses for the shooting of Darren Marshall. Terrell was sentenced to 27 years in prison. During sentencing, Marshall provided a victim impact statement claiming severe injuries, including impotence. Terrell later discovered that Marshall had fathered another child and was convicted of rape, suggesting that Marshall's statement was false.Terrell filed multiple post-conviction motions over nine years. His first Rule 35(b) motion to reduce his sentence, based on the alleged falsity of Marshall's statement, was denied. The trial court found that the new information did not warrant a sentence reduction. Terrell's first Section 23-110 motion, which included claims of ineffective assistance of counsel and the false victim impact statement, was also denied. The trial court did not address the victim impact statement claim in its denial. Terrell's second Rule 35(b) motion, citing his rehabilitation and difficult childhood, was denied as procedurally barred and lacking substantive merit.In 2022, Terrell filed a second Section 23-110 motion, arguing that the trial court's reliance on Marshall's false statement violated his due process rights. The trial court denied the motion, ruling it was procedurally barred and successive, as it raised the same claim as his first Rule 35(b) motion.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that Terrell's second Section 23-110 motion was successive. The court adopted the rule from Sanders v. United States, which allows a motion to be deemed successive if it asserts an identical ground for relief as a previous motion, even if supported by different legal or factual arguments. The court found that Terrell's second motion raised the same ground for relief as his first Rule 35(b) motion, which had been denied on the merits. View "Terrell v. United States" on Justia Law

In 1996, when Riley was sixteen, he and two older teenagers drove around the District of Columbia looking for members of a rival group and ended up shooting and killing two young brothers. A few weeks earlier, Riley and the same teenagers had committed a similar crime in Maryland, resulting in another death. Riley pled guilty to first-degree murder in Maryland and was sentenced to life in prison. In D.C., a jury convicted him of two counts of first-degree murder while armed, assault with intent to kill while armed, and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence. He received sentences totaling seventy years to life, consecutive to his Maryland sentence.Riley's convictions were affirmed on direct appeal. In 2022, he filed a motion under the Incarceration Reduction Amendment Act (IRAA) seeking immediate release, arguing his rehabilitation and readiness to reenter society. The government did not oppose a sentence reduction but suggested a term of twelve years to life. The trial court held an evidentiary hearing and partially granted Riley's motion, reducing his sentence to time served plus three years and three months, relying on factors from the District’s determinate sentencing statute and voluntary sentencing guidelines.The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the case and found that the trial court erred by relying on non-IRAA statutes and factors, contrary to the recent decision in Doe v. United States. The court held that IRAA’s enumerated factors should exclusively guide the dangerousness and interests of justice inquiries. Consequently, the appellate court vacated the trial court’s decision and remanded for further proceedings consistent with IRAA’s statutory framework and the Doe decision. View "Riley v. United States" 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