Levine v. American Psychological Ass'n
862 F. Supp. 2d 1
D.D.C.2012Background
- APA and APAPO are DC-based organizations with shared membership and governance; plaintiffs allege a mandatory practice or special assessment was unlawfully represented as required for APA/APAPO membership.
- Plaintiffs, California and Tennessee residents, paid the special assessment between 2001–2010 as part of APA dues, seeking to represent a class of those who paid the assessment.
- Plaintiffs contend APA misled members by stating the assessment was mandatory when it was voluntary.
- Defendants move to dismiss on grounds that the contract governs the relationship, the statements were not misleading, and California claims are preempted by DC law.
- The court evaluates whether an express contract (membership bylaws and rules) forecloses unjust enrichment, and whether California consumer protection claims apply under DC choice-of-law principles.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether express contract bars unjust enrichment claims | Unjust enrichment survives if contract doesn’t cover the issue | Existence of bylaws/rules forecloses unjust enrichment | Unjust enrichment claim dismissed due to express membership contracts |
| Whether bylaws and rules are governing contracts for membership | BYLAWS inform members of mandatory aspects not necessarily clear | BYLAWS fix membership obligations and remedies | Bylaws are controlling contracts; they foreclose unjust enrichment claim |
| Whether DC choice-of-law governs misrepresentation and CPPA claims | California interests apply; misrepresentation actionable under CA law | DC law governs; CPPA exemptions apply to nonprofits | DC law applies; CPPA claims against nonprofits must be dismissed |
| Whether California consumer protection claims survive under DC choice of law | California statutes should apply to consumer deception | DC law controls; CPPA exemptions apply to nonprofits | CPPA applies and claims dismissed due to nonprofit exemption |
| Whether leave to amend should be granted | Amendment could fix pleading defects | Amendment would be futile given contract-based defects | Leave to amend denied as futile for the unjust enrichment claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Schiff v. Am. Ass’n of Retired Persons, 697 A.2d 1193 (D.C. 1997) (courts may consider contracts referenced in complaint on a motion to dismiss)
- PBGC v. White Consol. Indus., Inc., 998 F.2d 1192 (3d Cir. 1993) (court may consider undisputed documents attached to motion to dismiss)
- Washkoviak v. Student Loan Mktg. Ass’n, 900 A.2d 168 (D.C. 2006) (Restatement §145/§148 guidance on choice-of-law in misrepresentation)