McDonald's USA, LLC v. Craft, Civil Action No. 2017-0119

McDonald’s Real Estate Co. owns property at 4301 Nannie Helen Burroughs Ave. NE containing a McDonald’s restaurant in operation since 1966; a single waterline and meter historically served that restaurant and the adjacent 4309 property.
In 1974 McDonald’s predecessor sold the 4309 property to Willie T. Craft but retained the restaurant parcel; the parties agreed to a sub‑meter for separate billing while the shared waterline remained in place.
Craft knew the restaurant relied on the shared waterline and, until recent disputes over water charges, did not interrupt its use for decades.
Plaintiffs sued; Craft, who is now pro se, did not respond to Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions or judgment on the pleadings after the court warned that failure to respond could lead to adverse relief.
The court treated the motion under Rule 12(c), found the material facts undisputed, and concluded Plaintiffs established an implied easement by reservation strictly necessary for the restaurant’s operation.
The court granted declaratory relief and a permanent injunction preventing Craft from interrupting the restaurant’s use of the shared waterline; it reserved decision on a specific fee award pending a particularized motion.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether an implied easement by reservation exists for use of the shared waterline	McDonald’s: undisputed record shows it reserved use when it sold the adjoining parcel; continued, known use and necessity establish an implied reservation	Craft: no response filed opposing the motion (historical acquiescence but recent disputes over charges)	Court: granted judgment on the pleadings — an implied easement by reservation exists because continued water supply is strictly necessary and use was known and uninterrupted for decades
Whether permanent injunctive/declaratory relief is appropriate	McDonald’s: seeks declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to prevent shutdowns that would irreparably harm business	Craft: not articulated in opposing briefs; no argument against injunctive relief presented	Court: granted permanent injunction and declaratory relief — plaintiffs prevailed on the merits, would suffer irreparable harm, defendant would not be unduly burdened, and public interest favors injunction
Whether sanctions/attorney’s fees should be awarded for discovery/court‑order violations	McDonald’s: seeks fees and costs as sanctions under Rule 37 for noncompliance	Craft: no specific opposition submitted	Court: did not decide on sanctions now; permitted plaintiffs to file a specific fee motion by deadline identifying fees tied to defendant’s discovery/order violations

Martin v. Bicknell, 99 A.3d 705 (D.C. 2014) (explains implied easement by grant or reservation and necessity requirement for implied reservation)
Cohen v. Bd. of Trs. of Univ. of the Dist. of Columbia, 819 F.3d 476 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (caution about treating unopposed motions as conceded without merits review)
Winston & Strawn, LLP v. McLean, 843 F.3d 503 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (limits application of local rule treating motions as conceded in certain contexts)
Breaking the Chain Found., Inc. v. Capitol Educ. Support, Inc., 589 F. Supp. 2d 25 (D.D.C. 2008) (lists factors for permanent injunction analysis)
Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Haeger, 137 S. Ct. 1178 (2017) (limits and explains the scope of fee awards as remedies for litigation misconduct)