Phyllis D. Thompson

In Bradshaw v. District of Columbia, appellant Trinetta Bradshaw sued the District and MPD Officer Milan Jones for false arrest and imprisonment and a constitutional deprivation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 after her 2004 arrest at Club H20. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants, but the appellate court reversed and remanded. The core reasoning was that genuine issues of material fact existed as to whether Officer Jones had probable cause to arrest Bradshaw for unlawful entry, given conflicting deposition and trial testimony about whether a bouncer had asked her to leave and whether she refused, as well as disputes over her actions at the time of the stop.

criminal lawcivil rightsprocedure

The case concerned whether Georgetown Court Condominium, LLC created an enforceable lien on real property owned by judgment debtor Scott Wandling by recording a certified copy of the Landlord and Tenant Branch docket sheet that reflected a money judgment against him. After Wandling sold the property to appellant Robinson without satisfying the judgment, Georgetown Court sought judicial foreclosure, and the trial court granted summary judgment in its favor. The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that D.C. Code § 15-102(a) requires only the filing and recordation of a judgment to create a lien and does not prescribe any particular form or document; the certified docket sheet containing the money-judgment entry therefore sufficed. The court rejected arguments that Superior Court Civil Rules 54 and 58 or Landlord-Tenant Branch forms imposed additional requirements, noting the absence of any statutory definition or form mandate and the summary nature of Landlord-Tenant proceedings.

propertyprocedure

This case involved the District of Columbia's condemnation of property owned by Samuel N. Franco and leased to his business in the Skyland Shopping Center for redevelopment. The property owners challenged the taking, asserting lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and that the public purpose was pretextual, and sought additional discovery. The trial court granted partial summary judgment to the District, struck the affirmative defenses, denied the motion to compel further discovery, and granted possession of the property. The appellate court affirmed these orders, finding no abuse of discretion in discovery rulings, that the Superior Court had jurisdiction, and that the evidence did not support the pretext defense after extensive discovery.

propertyprocedure

In this case, R.B. challenged a decision by the Office of Administrative Hearings that denied him unemployment compensation benefits after the EPA terminated him for conduct unbecoming a law enforcement officer and lack of candor, based on his wife's allegations of sexual misconduct and statements made during an internal investigation. The ALJ found that EPA had proven by a preponderance of the evidence that R.B. gave misleading or untruthful information to investigators, relying on transcripts of police interviews with his wife and his own interview responses, but did not treat the wife's statements as establishing a disqualifying rule violation. The D.C. Court of Appeals remanded the matter, holding that the ALJ failed to explicitly apply 7 DCMR § 312.10, which bars basing a misconduct finding on prior statements or documents without other reliable corroborating evidence, and that additional evidentiary concerns existed regarding the wife's untested statements, potential contextual issues, and R.B.'s lack of prior access to those statements. The court directed reconsideration of whether EPA met its burden to show gross misconduct under the applicable regulations.

labor & employmentprocedure

In this case, Kenneth Aiken appealed his convictions for multiple felony and misdemeanor offenses against his former girlfriend, arguing that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to request a Kastigar hearing to determine whether the government improperly used his immunized testimony from a civil protection order hearing. After a remand from an earlier appeal, the trial court found that the government had met its burden of showing no taint from the immunized testimony. On further review, the appellate court determined that the government failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that no use was made of the immunized testimony and that the use was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt for three specific counts (one felony threat and two misdemeanor destruction of property convictions). Accordingly, the court reversed those convictions while upholding the others, based on a detailed examination of witness testimony, investigative records, and potential evidentiary influences from the CPO hearing.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a challenge by Julius Fleischman to the District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment's (BZA) approval of special exception and multiple area variances requested by Hillcrest Homes Association LP to develop 54 one-family detached dwellings on a 12.59-acre wooded property in Southeast D.C., which required reducing lot sizes and other adjustments due to the site's topography. The petitioner argued that the BZA lacked authority to grant such extensive relief, as it amounted to an improper rezoning of the property. The court affirmed the BZA's decision, holding that it acted within its authority under D.C. Code § 6-641.07(e), that substantial evidence supported the findings of practical difficulties justifying the variances, and that the approval did not constitute a de facto amendment to zoning regulations.

propertybusiness & regulatory