Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington University
802 F. Supp. 2d 166
D.D.C.2011Background
- Hajjar-Nejad filed suit April 9, 2010, after GW dismissed him from its Medical School in July 2007.
- Action was transferred from Maryland to the District of Columbia federal court, where Hajjar-Nejad amended his pleadings twice, narrowing to a single breach-of-contract claim.
- The operative Second Amended Complaint contends the Offer of Acceptance (Nov. 5–7, 2003) created a binding contract and GW breached by dismissal in July 2007.
- The Offer of Acceptance required compliance with regulations, and included a clause allowing dismissal for false information or omissions in the application process; it did not clearly define GW’s overall dismissal discretion.
- GW moved to dismiss for failure to plead fixable contract terms and for statute of limitations; Hajjar-Nejad opposed, and later sought to amend to add civil-rights claims.
- The court granted in part GW’s motion to dismiss—precluding claims based on unidentified regulations/policies—and denied in part the remainder, denied Hajjar-Nejad’s motion to amend, and granted Beasley’s motion to withdraw.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether breach of contract claim based on Offer of Acceptance states a plausible claim | Hajjar-Nejad asserts Offer of Acceptance constitutes binding contract and GW breached by dismissal. | GW argues failure to plead specific contractual provisions/regulations and their breach renders claim vague and nonplausible. | Yes for fair notice; claim survives as to Offer of Acceptance breach, with narrowing on non-specific regulations. |
| Whether the breach claim is time-barred for pre-April 9, 2007 conduct | N/A | Breach claims pre-dating April 9, 2007 are time-barred under a three-year statute of limitations. | No bar; only the post-2007 dismissal is within period, and pre-2007 conduct is not independently alleged as a separate breach. |
| Whether the Second Amended Complaint adequately pleads contract terms | N/A | Adequate specificity absent for the regulatory/policy-based terms; lacks explicit contract terms. | Partially denied; claims based on unidentified policies are dismissed for lack of notice. |
| Whether Hajjar-Nejad should be allowed to amend to add civil-rights claims | Exhaustion letters and right-to-sue permit amendment. | Amendment would be futile and procedurally defective without a proposed pleading and meet-and-confer. | Denied; amendment futile and procedurally defective absent a proposed pleading and meet-and-confer. |
| Whether Beasley may withdraw as counsel | N/A | Withdrawal appropriate given disagreements and lack of opposition by Hajjar-Nejad. | Granted; Beasley may withdraw; Hajjar-Nejad must secure new counsel or proceed pro se. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (heightened pleading standard; threadbare recitals not sufficient)
- Willoughby v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 100 F.3d 999 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (leave to amend should be freely given absent futility)
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (U.S. 1962) (liberal policy favoring leave to amend)
- National Wrestling Coaches Ass'n v. Dept. of Educ., 366 F.3d 930 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (futility standard for denial of amendment)
- Abdullah v. Washington, 530 F. Supp. 2d 112 (D.D.C. 2008) (duty to amend; standards for pleadings)
- In re Interbank Funding Corp. Secs. Litig., 629 F.3d 213 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (pleading sufficiency; standard of review for dismissal)
- Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n v. St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch., 117 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (EEOC enforcement and administrative exhaustion context)
- St. Francis Xavier Parochial Sch. v. EEOC, 117 F.3d 621 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (reiterated above for context)
- Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181 (D.C. 2009) (elements of a DC breach of contract claim)