Nawaz v. Bloom Residential, LLC, 308 A.3d 1215

Mahmood Nawaz (Appellant) entered a contract with the Trustee (Batchelor) to buy a four-unit property in D.C.
The Trustee and Bloom Residential, LLC held all tenant rights under the District's Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA).
Key tenants assigned their TOPA rights: Units #2 and #4 tenants to Trustee; Unit #1 tenants to Bloom Residential, which then exercised the purchase right.
Bloom Residential and the Trustee entered a contract to purchase; title insurance was blocked due to Nawaz’s refusal to release his prior contract.
The Trustee and Bloom sued Nawaz for a declaratory judgment that their contract had priority under TOPA and for tortious interference; Nawaz counterclaimed, arguing his contract was still valid.
Superior Court awarded summary judgment to the Trustee and Bloom Residential and ordered attorney fees and security; Nawaz appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Bloom Residential’s contract superseded Nawaz’s contract under TOPA	Nawaz’s contract was superior since "TOPA compliance" occurred before Bloom signed; assignment of rights to Trustee/Bloom gives no priority	Only the assignment of Unit #1 to Bloom Residential mattered; Bloom’s exercise of rights supplanted Nawaz’s conditional contract	For Trustee/Bloom: Bloom Residential's exercise of TOPA right made its contract superior as a matter of law
Did the Bloom Residential contract expire and thus lose priority after missing the December 15, 2020, closing?	Bloom Residential contract became void after missed deadline; no evidence of extension	Nawaz’s refusal to release his contract blocked closing; intent and actions showed Bloom still wanted to perform	For Trustee/Bloom: Nawaz’s obstruction prevented closing, so Bloom's contract did not lapse
Was Nawaz entitled to discovery before summary judgment under Rule 56(d)?	Needed discovery on tenants’ status/assignments and Trustee actions	Discovery requests were untimely/generic and did not seek material facts	For Trustee/Bloom: Nawaz not diligent; no entitlement to discovery
Was it proper to order Nawaz (a counterclaimant) to post security for costs under D.C. Code § 15-703(a)?	Not addressed	Statute applies only to initial plaintiffs, not counterclaimants	For Nawaz: Statute does not apply to counterclaimants; sanction vacated

1618 Twenty-First St. Tenants’ Ass’n v. Phillips Collection, 829 A.2d 201 (D.C. 2003) (TOPA’s purpose: protect tenants by giving first refusal opportunity before third-party sale)
Allman v. Snyder, 888 A.2d 1161 (D.C. 2005) (TOPA rights can be broadly assigned to third parties)
William J. Davis, Inc. v. Tuxedo LLC, 124 A.3d 612 (D.C. 2015) (Third-party purchase rights always conditional on tenant exercise under TOPA)
Richman Towers Tenants’ Ass’n, Inc. v. Richman Towers LLC, 17 A.3d 590 (D.C. 2011) (TOPA to be broadly construed in favor of tenants)
Morrison v. Branch Banking & Trust Co. of Va., 25 A.3d 930 (D.C. 2011) (Details on broad assignment of tenant rights under TOPA)
Oparaugo v. Watts, 884 A.2d 63 (D.C. 2005) (Points not preserved in trial court generally not reviewed on appeal)