Jia Di Feng v. See-Lee Lim
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 50733
| D.D.C. | 2011Background
- Feng paid Lim $10,000 to obtain a green card; Lim took the money and provided no immigration assistance.
- Plaintiff initially filed in DC Superior Court; case was removed to federal court by Allstate in 2010.
- Plaintiff asserts five counts against Lim and Allstate: fraudulent misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligent training and supervision, gross negligence, and DC CPPA violations; and seeks over $1 million in damages.
- Lim is a Virginia resident with alleged business and immigration-related activities reportedly connected to Allstate; Allstate is an Illinois corporation with principal place in Illinois; Feng is a DC resident.
- The court addresses personal jurisdiction under DC long-arm statute and Rule 12(b)(6) defenses against each defendant and each count.
- The court grants and/or denies various motions to dismiss: counts I, II, IV, V against Allstate are dismissed; count III against Allstate dismissed without prejudice; count III against Lim dismissed; and a status conference is set for May 19, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court has personal jurisdiction over Lim | Feng asserts Lim transacted business in DC by handling the immigration matter in the district. | Lim contends no DC events occurred and she did not transact DC business. | Court finds prima facie DC long-arm basis; jurisdiction may be revisited with discovery. |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation against Lim | Lim misrepresented immigration capabilities and engaged in deceitful acts to obtain money. | Lim disputes elements or specificity of pleading; but claim survives against Lim. | Fraud claim against Lim survives; sufficiently pleaded with 9(b) specifics at this stage. |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation against Allstate (vicarious liability) | Allstate is liable for Lim's fraud under respondeat superior if Lim acted within scope of employment. | No explicit allegation Allstate authorized Lim’s immigration work; no scope-of-employment shown. | Fraud claim against Allstate dismissed for lack of agency/scope facts; vicarious liability not established. |
| Breach of contract against Lim and Allstate | Lim solicited immigration services, received $10,000, and failed to perform; Allstate may be liable if Lim acted within scope. | No clear contract between Feng and Allstate; Lim’s conduct not tied to Allstate’s contractual duties. | Breach of contract claim survives against Lim; against Allstate, claim dismissed for lack of scope/agency connection. |
| Negligence and negligent supervision | Lim breached duty; Allstate negligently trained/supervised Lim. | No independent tort against Lim; negligent supervision lacks facts showing knowledge and failure to supervise. | Lim’s gross negligence claim dismissed; Allstate negligent supervision dismissed without prejudice to amend; Lim's claim barred by contract-based duty and lack of independent tort viability. |
| CPPA claims against Lim and Allstate | Lim and/or Allstate violated CPPA by misrepresenting sponsorship/connection and customer status; plaintiff is a consumer. | Plaintiff may be consumer with Lim; Allstate direct CPPA violations lack factual basis absent scope. | CPPA claims survive against Lim; against Allstate, CPPA claims dismissed for lack of direct improper conduct and lack of proven consumer status tied to Allstate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doe v. Exxon Mobil Corp., 573 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2008) (awareness pleading; Rule 9(b) adequacy in misrepresentation cases)
- Choharis v. State Farm Fire and Casualty Co., 961 A.2d 1080 (D.C. 2008) (economy of contract-based tort and independent tort viability)
- Pietsch v. McKissack & McKissack, 677 F. Supp. 2d 325 (D.D.C. 2010) (negligent supervision standard; knowledge and oversight elements)
- Carroll v. Fremont Investment & Loan, 636 F. Supp. 2d 41 (D.D.C. 2009) (negligent supervision; scope of duties and permissible theories)
- Simms v. District of Columbia, 699 F. Supp. 2d 217 (D.D.C. 2010) (negligent supervision; employer knowledge and failure to supervise)
- Potomac Plaza Terraces, Inc. v. QSC Products, Inc., 868 F. Supp. 346 (D.D.C. 1994) (economic loss doctrine in contract settings)
- Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752 (D.C. 2001) (negligent supervision; scope and standard for master-servant concepts)
- In re National Student Marketing Litigation, 413 F. Supp. 1156 (D.D.C. 1976) (pleading requirements; general averments allowed under Rule 9(b))
- Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Kelly, 448 A.2d 856 (D.C. 1982) (master-servant and scope considerations in agency relationships)