Harnett v. Washington Harbour Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n, 54 A.3d 1165

WHC is a Georgetown condo complex with 36 residential and 48 parking units governed by the Owners’ Association and its Board.
Harnett (resident) and Washington Capital Group (owner) held multiple parking and residential units and allege damages from five new parking spaces created by the Association in the garage.
In Aug 2004 the Board auctioned five new parking spaces carved from common elements; space P-2 adjacent to P-112 was part of the project; Harnett did not bid but attended the auction.
The Association justified parking expansion to address long-standing parking shortages and to fund renovations; it adopted a two-stage triage repair plan for building issues, allegedly delaying repairs to Harnett’s unit in retaliation.
Harnett and Washington Capital Group sued in Superior Court; counts I–V were filed, with I and II later dismissed; trial proceeded on counts III–V, ending in judgment for the Association.
The trial court granted Rule 41(b) dismissal of Count III; Counts IV and V were resolved in favor of the Association; on appeal, the DC Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Parking Space Revocable License was within authority	Harnett argues license is a lease and beyond authority.	Association asserts statutory power to grant licenses through common elements and bylaws do not expressly prohibit leases.	License/lease authority exists; Count I dismissed.
Whether Count II's zoning claims were barred by res judicata/collateral estoppel	Harnett could challenge zoning/space legality in court.	Zoning issues previously litigated before BZA and appellate court; barred.	Count II barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel.
Whether the district court properly denied a third amendment to the complaint (Rule 15)	Amend to include new fiduciary and zoning theories.	Late, prejudicial, and would require new discovery; improper at late stage.	No abuse of discretion; denial affirmed.
Whether the court properly granted Rule 41(b) dismissal of Count III (fiduciary duty)	Defendant waived issues by introducing evidence; genuine issues remained.	Record showed no breach of fiduciary duty; standard was reasonableness.	Count III properly dismissed.
Whether discovery rulings and admission of late-produced documents were proper	Late documents prejudiced plaintiffs; discovery mismanaged.	Late items were responsive and not prejudicial; discovery within court discretion.	No reversible error; admissions and rulings upheld.

Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 (D.C. 2011) (pleading standards: plausible claim under Iqbal standard)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (Supreme Court 2009) (heightened pleading standard for plausibility)
Steinkamp v. Hodson, 718 A.2d 107 (D.C. 1998) (assumed existence of tort for interference with property rights; factors applied)
Borger Mgmt., Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (D.C. 2005) (collateral estoppel applies when issues actually litigated before agency)
O’Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337 (D.C. 1982) (discovery-related directed verdict timing; admission of evidence)
Bolandz v. 1230-1250 23rd St. Condo. Unit Owners Ass’n, Inc., 849 A.2d 1010 (D.C. 2004) (reasonableness standard for regulatory actions by condominium boards)