Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc. v. Guest Services, Inc.
394 U.S. App. D.C. 73
| D.C. Cir. | 2011Background
- Gallaudet University hired Guest Services to manage its conference center; Guest contracted Capitol to service the fire sprinkler system.
- Capitol's duties included opening condensation drains and draining low points during fall/winter inspections.
- January 2003 Capitol inspectors drained most drum drips but one in a locked room remained inaccessible, allegedly due to Guest escort access.
- A pipe froze and burst later that month; Gallaudet's insurer St. Paul sued Capitol for negligence and breach of contract, with Capitol then naming Guest as third-party defendant.
- The district court denied; it later granted Guest’s summary judgment on Capitol’s third-party claims and dismissed Capitol, while remaining St. Paul’s tort claim against Capitol.
- Capitol appealed, arguing jurisdiction under Rule 4(a)(2) and challenging multiple district court orders.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Capitol’s premature notice of appeal was saved by Rule 4(a)(2). | Capitol argues Rule 4(a)(2) saves the notice despite no final judgment then. | Guest contends no Rule 54(b) finalizes existed to trigger 4(a)(2) protection. | Yes, jurisdiction exists; Rule 4(a)(2) saved timing. |
| Whether the district court properly denied Capitol summary judgment on third-party claims due to factual questions. | Capitol contends Guest’s status as agent and NFPA incorporation favored judgment for Capitol. | Guest argues lack of controlling expert testimony and unresolved agency/contract questions foreclose Capitol’s claims. | Abstained; district court ruling affirmed on de novo review, factual issues preclude judgment as a matter of law. |
| Whether Guest was entitled to summary judgment due to Capitol’s failure to disclose required expert testimony. | Capitol claims no expert needed on ‘ready accessibility’ and industry standard. | Guest asserts expert testimony was required under DC law for standards in NFPA and contractual duties. | Capitol must present expert testimony; summary judgment for Guest affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- FirsTier Mortg. Co. v. Investors Mortgage Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269 (1991) (Rule 4(a)(2) rescues premature notices when final judgment follows)
- Outlaw v. Airtech Air Conditioning & Heating, Inc., 412 F.3d 156 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (Rule 4(a)(2) applies to partial final judgments)
- St. Marks Place Hous. Co. v. U.S. Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., 610 F.3d 75 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (final judgment requirement and Rule 54(b) framework)
- Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U.S. 196 (1988) (mandatory, jurisdictional nature of timely notices)
- Sherman v. Adoption Ctr. of Washington, Inc., 741 A.2d 1031 (D.C. 1999) (expert necessity for standard-of-care questions in DC)
- Briggs v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 481 F.3d 839 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (expert testimony required when issue is beyond lay knowledge)