Emrit v. Holland & Knight, LLP
Civil Action No. 2017-0173
| D.D.C. | Jan 27, 2017Background
- Plaintiff (pro se, resident of Las Vegas) sued four D.C.-based defendants — Thomas Hart/On The Potomac, Holland & Knight LLP, and the D.C. Bar — seeking $45 million for an alleged breach of a 2005 contract for artist development.
- Plaintiff alleges he paid Hart approximately $1,500 in late 2005 to be introduced to LL Cool J and that Hart provided limited services (introductions, producing a reggae track, recovering a retainer) but failed to deliver the promised results.
- Plaintiff also filed a grievance with the D.C. Bar claiming Hart failed to make the promised introduction; he seeks discipline of Hart for that failure.
- Plaintiff argued the three-year statute of limitations should be equitably tolled because he only later learned he could proceed pro se and in forma pauperis; record shows he has extensive prior pro se filings and IFP history.
- The court determined the breach accrued no later than 2006, so the three-year limitations period expired by 2009; the complaint was filed in 2016 and no credible tolling excuse was provided.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness (statute of limitations) | Equitable tolling because plaintiff only later knew he could proceed pro se/IFP | Claims accrued by 2006; limitations barred by 2009; no valid tolling | Dismissed as time-barred — plaintiff’s excuse rejected given prior IFP filings and delay |
| Vicarious liability of Holland & Knight | Firm is liable for Hart’s misfeasance/nonfeasance/malfeasance | Hart acted through his company On The Potomac; no facts showing actions within scope of employment | Dismissed as to firm — plaintiff contracted with Hart’s company, not the firm |
| Claim against D.C. Bar for failing to discipline Hart | Bar failed to reprimand Hart after grievance | Disciplinary authority vested in D.C. Court of Appeals, not this court | Dismissed for lack of jurisdiction over attorney discipline (Feldman doctrine) |
| Sufficiency of breach allegations on the merits | Alleged breach of contract and failure to deliver promised introductions/services | Allegations show limited performance and lack of actionable misconduct; untimely | Even construing facts favorably, claims fail as untimely and would not survive merits review |
Key Cases Cited
- Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A., 890 F.2d 456 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (federal court in diversity must apply local law for statute of limitations)
- Silvious v. Snapple Beverage Corp., 793 F. Supp. 2d 414 (D.D.C. 2011) (claim accrues when plaintiff knows the facts constituting the cause of action)
- Fleck v. Cablevision VII, Inc., 799 F. Supp. 187 (D.D.C. 1992) (distinguishing knowledge of facts from knowledge of legal significance for accrual)
- Jia Di Feng v. See-Lee Lim, 786 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2011) (employer not liable for employee’s acts when plaintiff contracts with separate entity and no scope-of-employment allegations)
- D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (U.S. 1983) (federal courts lack jurisdiction to review state court decisions, including state bar disciplinary determinations)
- Emrit v. NIH, 157 F. Supp. 3d 52 (D.D.C. 2016) (discussed plaintiff’s prior pro se filings and litigation history)