First Annex, Inc. v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation
990 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2013Background
- First Annex leased Union Station space from USI to operate an Einstein Bros. cafe under a 10-year term commencing 120 days after substantial completion (May 2011).
- Plaintiff spent 14 months preparing/con revising construction plans; USI notified substantial completion on May 13, 2011.
- AMTRAK required clearance for work due to location over the AMTRAK Long-Haul Tunnel, with provisional entry permits (TPE) process to obtain authorization.
- Rent was invoiced in June 2012; the lease was amended to start rent on June 1, 2012 after dispute over TPE timing; AMTRAK later issued the TPE in October 2012.
- Plaintiff opened for business in March 2013; August 20, 2013 filed DC Superior Court complaint against AMTRAK asserting delays and seeking damages for tortious interference and breach of contract.
- Defendants removed to federal court; motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) granted, with the court holding lack of pleaded intent and contractual basis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Tortious interference requires intent and plausible interference | Plaintiff asserts AMTRAK's delays were willful and intended to interfere with the Lease. | Defendants contend plaintiff fails to plead any intentional conduct by AMTRAK causing interference. | Dismissed; no pleaded facts show intentional interference. |
| Existence of a contract between AMTRAK and plaintiff capable of breach | Plaintiff argues AMTRAK is a party to the Lease or through implied relationships. | Defendant argues AMTRAK is not a party to the Lease and no plausible implied contract exists. | Dismissed; no viable express or implied contract plausibly alleged. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (pleading must show facial plausibility, not mere possibility)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility standard guides dismissal for lack of factual support)
- Casco Marina Dev., L.L.C. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency, 834 A.2d 77 (D.C. 2003) (interference claim may be actionable if causes a failure of performance)
- Onyeoziri v. Spivok, 44 A.3d 279 (D.C. 2012) (elements for intentional interference with business relations)