The D.C. Law Report

Two Amendments to Superior Court Landlord and Tenant Rules Take Effect

Douglas Melcher — Sun, 19 Feb 2012 16:15:47 +0000

On February 13, 2012, two amendments to the Superior Court Rules of Procedure for the Landlord and Tenant Branch (“Landlord and Tenant Rules” or “SCR-LT”) became effective. The amendments govern all newly commenced landlord and tenant proceedings and, to the extent just and practicable, all pending landlord and tenant proceedings as well.

The first amendment amends SCR-LT 3 which concerns the commencement of a landlord and tenant action. The amendment adds a comment which clarifies that notwithstanding that the Landlord and Tenant Rules incorporate Rule 9-I of the Superior Court Rules of Civil Procedure which permits unsworn declarations, a complaint for possession must comply with D.C. Code § 16-1501; specifically, as stated in the comment, “a complaint for possession must be verified under oath before a notary public or other person authorized by law to administer an oath and may not be based on an unsworn declaration.”

The second amendment amends SCR-LT 10 which concerns discovery. Specifically, the amendment adds a new section (b) which requires the plaintiff “[i]n any case involving an allegation of nonpayment of rent” to bring certain documents relating to the defendant’s payment or nonpayment of rent “to every court hearing, including the initial hearing and any mediation session.” The new section also authorizes the court to order a party to produce certain documents relating to the defendant’s payment or nonpayment of rent, and to impose sanctions on a party that fails to produce documents as ordered by the court. The amendment also adds a comment which states, inter alia, that the new section “is intended to assist the court and parties in resolving cases fairly and expeditiously at the initial hearing or thereafter” and “is not intended to require the plaintiff to present documentary evidence of the defendant’s nonpayment of rent at trial.”

To retrieve from the Superior Court’s website an electronic copy of its Order promulgating these amendments, click here.

About the Author: Douglas C. Melcher is a licensed attorney and an active member of the District of Columbia Bar with more than a decade of experience practicing law in the District of Columbia. Mr. Melcher may be contacted by e-mail at dmelcher@DCLaw.net or by telephone at (202) 521-0603. To learn more about Mr. Melcher, click here.

D.C. Council Holds Hearing on Bill to Allow Evidence of Assessed Tax Value in Condemnation Proceedings

Douglas Melcher — Tue, 14 Feb 2012 15:44:22 +0000

On February 9, 2012, the D.C. Council’s Committee on the Judiciary held a public hearing on, inter alia, the Real Property Tax Assessment Evidence Clarification Act of 2011 (B19-602). The hearing was presided over by the Chairman of the Judiciary Committee, At-Large Councilmember Phil Mendelson. The legislation, if enacted, would have the effect of abrogating case law holding that evidence of assessed tax value is inadmissible in condemnation proceedings in the District of Columbia. To read a prior post discussing the legislation, click here.

Two ANC commissioners and three private-sector attorneys testified in favor of the legislation. They generally each argued that it is unfair to exclude evidence of assessed tax value in condemnation proceedings where the District alleges that the subject property is worth less than the assessed tax value. They further argued that the legislation provides an appropriate remedy for that perceived unfairness by allowing evidence of assessed tax value to be admitted into evidence in such cases. Chairman Mendelson questioned, inter alia, whether the legislation was necessary given that the parties to a condemnation proceeding are permitted to present as evidence independent appraisals of the subject property’s fair market value.

Only one witness testified in opposition to the legislation; specifically, William Burk, Esquire, who is the Chief of the Land Acquisition & Bankruptcy Section of the Office of Attorney General. Mr. Burke testified on behalf of the executive branch of the District. He argued, inter alia, that evidence of assessed tax value should not be admissible in condemnation proceedings because it is inherently unreliable and that allowing such evidence to be admitted would be inconsistent with the rules of evidence of a majority of states. He did not know for certain, however, whether such evidence is admissible in condemnation proceedings in Maryland or Virginia. Mr. Burke agreed to provide a written supplement to his oral testimony discussing the rules applicable in those states. Chairman Mendelson commented, inter alia, that the fairness issue raised by supporters of the legislation will likely be an important consideration for other members of the Council in deciding whether the legislation should be enacted.

Noticeably absent from the hearing was Councilmember Jack Evans who introduced the legislation on December 2, 2011. Councilmember Evans is a member of the Judiciary Committee. The legislation has no co-sponsors.

The record will remain open for submission of written statements on the legislation until February 23, 2011. Persons interested in submitting written statements should refer to the hearing notice for information about how to submit written statements. To retrieve an electronic copy of the hearing notice, click here. To watch a recorded video of the hearing, click here.

Two Attorneys Formally Sworn in as Associate Judges of the Court of Appeals

Douglas Melcher — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 22:35:24 +0000

In early February, Corinne Ann Beckwith and Catharine Friend Easterly were formally sworn in as Associate Judges of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. They are the first new judges to be appointed to the court since 2009.

Judge Beckwith was nominated by President Barack Obama on March 31, 2011 to fill a vacancy due to the retirement of Judge Inez Reid. Judge Beckwith’s nomination was confirmed by the United States Senate on November 18, 2011, and she was formally sworn in at a courthouse ceremony on February 3, 2012. Judge Beckwith previously worked in the appellate division of the D.C. Public Defender Service, practicing almost exclusively in the Court of Appeals. To retrieve a brief biographical statement regarding Judge Beckwith from the Court of Appeals’ website, click here.

Judge Easterly was nominated by President Obama on August 2, 2011 to fill a vacancy due to the retirement of Judge Noël Kramer. Judge Easterly’s nomination was confirmed by the Senate on November 18, 2011, and she was formally sworn in at a courthouse ceremony on February 10, 2012. Judge Easterly previously worked in the Special Litigation Division of the D.C. Public Defender Service handling a diverse range of civil and criminal matters in the federal and local courts of the District of Columbia. To retrieve a brief biographical statement regarding Judge Easterly from the Court of Appeals’ website, click here.

At this time, only one vacancy remains to be filled on the Court of Appeals. President Obama nominated Roy McLeese III to fill that vacancy which was created due to the retirement of Judge Vanessa Ruiz. Mr. McLeese is currently the Chief of the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia. His nomination remains pending before the Senate. If Mr. McLeese’s nomination is confirmed, he will become President Obama’s third appointee to the Court of Appeals.

U.S. District Court Holds that D.C.’s Anti-SLAPP Act Does Not Apply to a Federal Court Sitting in Diversity Jurisdiction

Douglas Melcher — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 04:41:13 +0000

On February 2, 2012, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia decided 3m Co. v. Boulter, No. 11-CV-1527, Slip Op. (D.D.C. Feb. 2, 2012). The District Court’s opinion considered, inter alia, whether the District of Columbia’s recently enacted Anti-SLAPP Act applies to a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction, an issue of first impression. Id. at 11. By way of background, the Anti-SLAPP Act establishes expedited procedures for seeking early summary dismissal of a so-called “strategic lawsuit against public participation,” also known as a “SLAPP” suit. Id. at 9-10. The District Court held, based upon an extensive federal-state conflict of laws analysis, that the Anti-SLAPP Act does not apply to a federal court sitting in diversity jurisdiction because it conflicts with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Id. at 10-39. To read a prior post briefly summarizing the Anti-SLAPP Act, click here. To retrieve an electronic copy of the opinion in 3m Co. v. Boulter from the District Court’s website, click here.

Court of Appeals Holds that Personal Jurisdiction May Be Based on Petition Fraudulently Inducing Unwarranted Federal Action

Douglas Melcher — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 01:09:48 +0000

On January 26, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided Companhia Brasileira Carbureto de Calcio v. Applied Industrial Materials Corp., No. 11-SP-500, Slip Op. (D.C. Jan. 26, 2012). In that case, the Court of Appeals considered the following question on certification by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit: “Under District of Columbia law, does a petition sent to a federal government agency in the District provide a basis for establishing personal jurisdiction over the petitioner when the plaintiff has alleged that the petition fraudulently induced unwarranted government action against the plaintiff?” Id. at 1-2. The Court of Appeals held that it does. Id. at 2. By way of background, the Court of Appeals has previously “recognized a ‘government contacts’ exception under which courts in the District of Columbia would refrain from exercising personal jurisdiction even though the requirements of due process and the [District of Columbia's] long-arm statute otherwise would be satisfied.” Id. at 4. Pursuant to the government contacts exception, which was established to avoid impinging on freedom of speech and converting the District of Columbia into a “national judicial forum,” “entry into the District of Columbia by nonresidents for the purpose of contacting federal governmental agencies is not a basis for the assertion of in personam jurisdiction.” Id. 4-5 (internal quotation marks omitted). In affirmatively answering the question certified by the D.C. Circuit, the Court of Appeals clarified that the government contacts exception was never intended to provide that “individuals who enter the District of Columbia to fraudulently induce unwarranted government action against others, and succeed in doing so, should be able to avoid defending their actions in this jurisdiction.” Id. at 9. It further stated that “[s]uch fraud does not warrant our protection.” Id. It therefore held that the government contacts exception does not apply in cases where a defendant petitioned a federal government agency in the District of Columbia and thereby fraudulently induced unwarranted government action against the plaintiff. Id. at 10-11, 14. Finally, the Court of Appeals’ opinion sets forth pleading standards intended to reduce the risk that this holding will be abused by future litigants attempting to base personal jurisdiction in the District upon unfounded allegations of fraud. Id. at 11-14. To retrieve an electronic copy of the Court of Appeals’ opinion from its website, click here.

Court of Appeals Rules that Completed Jury Questionnaires May Be Subject to Public Disclosure Pursuant to First Amendment

Douglas Melcher — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 22:50:43 +0000

On January 19, 2012, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decided In re Access to Jury Questionnaires, No. 10-SP-1612, Slip. Op. (D.C. Jan. 19, 2012). In that case, the Court of Appeals considered an appeal by The Washington Post (“The Post”) of a trial court order denying a request by The Post and other media organizations for public access to questionnaires completed during voir dire by jurors who were empaneled in the trial for the murder of Chandra Levy. The Court of Appeals held that the trial court erred in failing to recognize that, pursuant to the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, The Post “has a presumptive right of access to the [completed] jury questionnaires.” Id. at 2. It also held that the trial court erred by not making “specific findings about the protectible privacy interests at stake and considering alternatives to complete closure.” Id. The Court of Appeals therefore reversed the trial court’s order and remanded for further proceedings. Id. To retrieve an electronic copy of the Court of Appeals’ opinion from its website, click here.

Council Announces Public Hearings on Agency Oversight and Budget

Douglas Melcher — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 18:28:13 +0000

On January 25, 2012, the D.C. Council issued two public notices announcing schedules for conducting public hearings on agency oversight and budget. The schedules identify dozens of separate public hearings which will be held in February, March, and April 2012. Of particular note, on February 24, 2012, the Committee on the Judiciary will hold an oversight hearing on, inter alia, the Judicial Nomination Commission (“JNC”), the Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure (“CJDT”), and the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”). Additionally, the Judiciary Committee will hold budget hearings on, inter alia, the Office of Attorney General on March 30, 2012; the OAH on April 4, 2012; and the JNC and CJDT on April 20, 2012. To read the public notice announcing the agency oversight hearings, click here. To read the public notice announcing the budget hearings, click here. As indicated in each of the public notices, interested persons may request to testify at the hearings.