Equal Rights Center v. Properties International and Ernest Banks, 110 A.3d 599

Plaintiff Equal Rights Center (ERC), a nonprofit that promotes fair housing, discovered a rental listing by Properties International (owned/brokered by Ernest Banks) stating: “Section 8 and other vouchers or certificates [will require] additional cost,” which allegedly violated the DCHRA’s ban on discrimination based on source of income.
ERC sent certified letters and proposed a settlement requiring fair-housing training paid by Properties International; negotiations failed and ERC sued under the DCHRA seeking declaratory, injunctive, monetary, and punitive relief plus fees.
ERC alleged it diverted scarce organizational resources (staff time, investigation, education/outreach, materials) to counteract defendants’ discriminatory listing and that the listing frustrated ERC’s mission.
Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(c) and asked the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment because they relied on materials outside the pleadings.
The trial court dismissed ERC’s complaint for lack of standing, viewing ERC’s alleged resource diversion as self‑inflicted and relying in part on Village of Arlington Heights; ERC appealed.
The appellate court reversed, holding ERC’s pleaded allegations of concrete diversion of resources sufficed at the pleading stage under Havens Realty and related authority, and remanded for further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Organizational standing to sue under the DCHRA (injury in fact)	ERC: its mission was concretely harmed and it diverted scarce resources to counteract the discriminatory listing, so it has standing under Havens Realty	Banks/Properties: ERC’s actions were ordinary advocacy; any resource diversion was voluntary/self‑inflicted; no ongoing injury and one unit had been rented so no future harm	Court: At pleading stage ERC’s allegations of concrete diversion and mission interference were sufficient to survive 12(c); trial court erred to dismiss for lack of standing and must accept ERC’s factual allegations; remand for further proceedings (fact‑finding if necessary)
Treatment of defendants’ Rule 12(c) motion and consideration of materials outside the pleadings	ERC: trial court should not have relied on outside materials or converted the motion without affording summary‑judgment procedure	Defendants: they relied on attachments and asked the court to treat the motion as one for summary judgment	Court: Noted Rule 12(c) requires conversion to summary judgment if outside materials are considered; trial court did not properly treat the motion as summary judgment nor conduct an evidentiary hearing; on remand, proper procedures/fact‑finding may be used to resolve standing if jurisdictional facts are contested

Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (U.S. 1977) (discussed by trial court but not controlling for organizational‑standing analysis)
Havens Realty Corp. v. Coleman, 455 U.S. 363 (U.S. 1982) (organization has standing when defendant’s conduct causes concrete diversion of resources)
Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (standing requires injury in fact, causation, redressability)
City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (U.S. 1983) (requirements for forward‑looking equitable relief/injunctions)
Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (pleading standard for plausibility)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (application of Twombly plausibility standard)
Equal Rights Ctr. v. Post Properties, 633 F.3d 1136 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (ERC’s prior case on organizational standing and limits on self‑inflicted resource diversion)
Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (pleading-stage standing burden discussion)
D.C. Appleseed Ctr. for Law & Justice v. D.C. Dep’t of Ins., Sec., & Banking, 54 A.3d 1188 (D.C. 2012) (application of Havens to organizational standing)
Matthews v. Automated Bus. Sys. & Servs., Inc., 558 A.2d 1175 (D.C. 1989) (court’s authority and procedures for resolving jurisdictional facts)