APA Assessment Fee Litigation v. American Psychological Assoc.
412 U.S. App. D.C. 324
| D.C. Cir. | 2014Background
- APA is a large national nonprofit; members pay annual dues plus a separate, optional special assessment to fund APAPO lobbying.
- The dues statement allegedly instructed “MUST PAY” the special assessment, though payment was not actually required for membership.
- Plaintiffs allege the APA misrepresented the special assessment as mandatory to obtain/maintain membership and to fund APAPO advocacy.
- District court dismissed unjust enrichment and California-law claims; dismissed proposed amendments for fraud, rescission, negligent misrepresentation.
- Plaintiffs appeal, arguing (i) unjust enrichment is viable despite an express contract; (ii) California claims have true conflicts with DC law; (iii) proposed amendments for fraud, rescission, negligent misrepresentation should proceed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Unjust enrichment vs. contract | Unjust enrichment survives despite an express contract since payments were mistaken overpayments. | Existence of APA bylaws/contracts precludes unjust enrichment. | Unjust enrichment claim survives; not precluded by express contract. |
| Reasonableness of reliance for unjust enrichment | Members reasonably relied on must-pay language on dues statement and website. | Reliance was unreasonable or improperly evaluated at motion to dismiss. | Reasonable reliance found; dismissal reversed on this issue. |
| California statutory claims vs. DC law | California UCL and FAL apply; conflict with DC CPPA; California has strong interest. | DC law governs; California claims should be dismissed. | California claims dismissed; DC law controls due to lack of true conflict and forum choice. |
| Fraudulent inducement claim | Fraudulent inducement should be allowed; reliance element should not bar it. | Claim futile due to lack of reasonable reliance. | Fraudulent inducement claim properly permitted on remand; not futile. |
| Rescission and negligent misrepresentation | Rescission feasible despite ongoing contracts; negligent misrepresentation should be considered. | Rescission barred due to fully performed contracts; negligent misrepresentation timing issues. | Rescission remains barred; negligent misrepresentation dismissed with prejudice but remand allowed for procedural amendment. |
Key Cases Cited
- News World Commc’ns, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218 (D.C. 2005) (unjust enrichment defined; restitution for mistaken payment)
- Peart v. D.C. Hous. Auth., 972 A.2d 810 (D.C. 2009) (elements of unjust enrichment; contract vs. restitution)
- Kitt v. Capital Concerts, Inc., 742 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1999) (fraud elements; reasonable reliance sometimes required)
- Jordan Keys & Jessamy, LLP v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co., 14 App. D.C. 154 (D.C. 1899) (presumption of member awareness of bylaws)
- Washkoviak v. Student Loan Mktg. Ass’n, 900 A.2d 168 (D.C. 2006) (choice-of-law analysis guidance; tie-breaking forum law)