Boomer Development, LLC v. National Association of Home Builders of the United States, 258 F. Supp. 3d 1

NAHB promoted a North Star financing program to members offering non-recourse debt up to $10 million with favorable terms.
Ten Plaintiffs paid application fees ($30,000–$190,000) relying on NAHB representations that North Star had been reviewed or approved.
North Star financing never materialized; Plaintiffs incurred development costs and lost expected profits.
In May 2015 the SEC filed a federal lawsuit against North Star and others.
Plaintiffs filed suit in June 2016 in Pennsylvania state court for fraud and related claims, which NAHB removed and was then transferred to this court under §1631; Counts I–III remained, Count IV was dismissed.
The court later held Nevada law governs breach of fiduciary duty, while District of Columbia law governs fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Choice-of-law governs counts I–III	Plaintiffs say multiple states have interests; no single clear conflict.	No true conflict; parties waived; apply forum law by default.	DC law applies to misrepresentation; Nevada law to fiduciary duty.
Whether NAHB's statements about North Star were actionable misrepresentations under DC law	Statements implied NAHB reviewed/approved North Star; not mere opinions.	Many statements were opinions or broad descriptions; not actionable.	Statements may be actionable where they implied factual basis; some claims survive Rule 9(b) scrutiny, with limitations.
Whether misrepresentation claims were adequately pleaded under Rule 9(b)	Allegations identify speakers, times, methods, and content of assurances.	Some Plaintiffs failed to allege specific misstatements or reliance timing.	Claims largely plead with Rule 9(b) sufficient specificity; some Plaintiffs’ claims dismissed for lack of particularity and reliance timing.
Whether a fiduciary relationship existed between NAHB and plaintiffs	Membership creates fiduciary-like duties; NAHB as a nonprofit owes duties to members.	Neither Nevada law recognizing such duties nor facts show a fiduciary relationship; claims fail.	No fiduciary relationship found; breach of fiduciary duty claims dismissed.

Howard v. Riggs National Bank, 432 A.2d 701 (D.C. App. 1981) (opinions/predictions generally not actionable unless basis is shown)
Stein v. Treger, 182 F.2d 696 (D.C. Cir. 1950) (agency representations may rise to fraud if imply true statement)
In re APA Assessment Fee Litig., 766 F.3d 39 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (conflict-of-laws framework for choice of law in transfers)
Washkoviak v. Student Loan Mktg. Ass’n, 900 A.2d 168 (D.C. 2006) (Restatement §145 factors; balancing related to choice of law)
GEICO v. Fetisoff, 958 F.2d 1137 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (true conflict analysis under Restatement factors)
Sibley v. St. Albans Sch., 134 A.3d 789 (D.C. 2016) (fraud elements under DC law)
Perry v. Jordan, 900 P.2d 335 (Nev. 1995) (confidential/fiduciary duties in Nevada context)
Mackintosh v. Cal. Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n, 935 P.2d 1154 (Nev. 1997) (confidential relationship concepts in Nevada)
Edgar v. MITE Corp., 457 U.S. 624 (1982) (internal affairs doctrine in corporate governance)
Labovitz v. Wash. Times Corp., 900 F. Supp. 500 (D.D.C. 1995) (internal affairs doctrine and choice of law considerations)