Franco v. District of Columbia
39 A.3d 890
| D.C. | 2012Background
- NCRC/DC condemned the Skyland Shopping Center property owned by Franco; D Mart leased it from Franco.
- Council passed Skyland Act on Dec 7, 2004; Mayor signed Dec 29, 2004; law took effect after review on Apr 5, 2005.
- District substituted as plaintiff on remand after NCRC dissolution; discovery extended for nearly two years.
- Amended complaint (2010) added Allan and Nathan Franco; District sought possession and other relief.
- Trial court granted partial summary judgment (2010), struck defenses, and later granted possession after a settlement on just compensation.
- On appeal, the DC Court of Appeals affirm these rulings, including possession and the challenged subject-matter jurisdiction and discovery rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Superior Court had subject-matter jurisdiction over the condemnation | Franco argues Skyland Act was improper and ultra vires, undermining jurisdiction | District contends jurisdiction is valid and pretext concerns do not defeat it | Jurisdiction proper; pretext and validity defenses do not defeat jurisdiction |
| Whether the Skyland Act could be rationally approved on economic development grounds | Franco contends no rational basis for economic development justifying condemnation | Council could rationally base approval on economic development even if private benefits accrue | Council's economic development rationale supported; pretext challenge rejected |
| Whether the district court abused discovery rulings | Franco argues denial of compelled discovery prevented full opposition | District produced extensive documents; court found no concealment and exercised discretion appropriately | No abuse of discretion; discovery rulings affirmed |
| Whether the trial court properly granted possession of the condemned property | Franco contends possession should be withheld pending merits | Court has authority to grant possession in condemnation actions | Court did not err; possession granted upon proper showing |
Key Cases Cited
- Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (U.S. 2005) (economic development public use may justify takings; deference to legislative judgment)
- Hawaii Hous. Auth. v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (U.S. 1984) (public purpose; reasonableness of legislative predictions endorsed)
- Franco I, 930 A.2d 160 (D.C. 2007) (pretext analysis; deference to public purpose and development plan)
- Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env, 523 U.S. 83 (U.S. 1998) (absence of a valid action does not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction)
- Grayson v. AT&T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (de novo review of subject-matter jurisdiction challenges)
- Berman v. Parker, 347 U.S. 521 (U.S. 1954) (deference to legislative judgments in public redevelopment)