Parr v. Ebrahimian
2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 34492
D.D.C.2011Background
- Parr, proceeding pro se, purchased a Rhode Island Avenue condominium from Rimcor in 2006 after Rimcor acquired the building from Walker Group, which had converted a single-family dwelling into a multi-unit building without a certificate of occupancy.
- Public Offering Statement allegedly claimed renovations complied with laws; exhibits attached to the POS were not actually attached.
- An inspection warned a safety hazard on a balcony railing; Ebrahimian assured compliance but the railing was not repaired.
- Parr obtained building permit documentation and an Engineer's Report prepared by the Walker Group, which she later contends was misrepresented.
- Parr's amended complaint asserts fraud, negligent misrepresentation, CPPA, and DCCA claims, plus negligence and breach-related theories against Rimcor and Walker.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fraud and misrepresentation liability | Rimcor misrepresented conditions in POS; Walker supplied information rendering POS false. | Walker did not directly misrepresent to Parr; any misrepresentation originated with Rimcor and Ebrahimian. | Fraud/negligent misrepresentation: Rimcor upheld; Walker dismissed. |
| DC CPPA liability | Defendants engaged in deceptive practices in selling the condo. | Walker did not make representations to Parr; CPPA claims against Walker lack basis. | CPPA claims: Rimcor viable; Walker dismissed. |
| DC Condominium Act claims | Rimcor failed to disclose POS material facts; condo not as described. | Only declarants may be liable; Walker not a declarant. | Rimcor viable under DCCA; Walker claims dismissed. |
| Negligence and negligence per se | Defendants breached duties related to marketing, construction, and safety regulations. | Duty and scope insufficiently pled; duplicative of misrepresentation; failure to identify specific regs. | Negligence not dismissed at this stage; potential claim over unsafe balcony. |
| Breach of contract and implied good faith | False warranties and pre-sale misrepresentations breach contract and good faith. | Pre-conveyance misrepresentations may be bad faith in negotiation, not contract breach after conveyance. | Breach of contract and implied duty viable against Rimcor; good faith claim dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (plausibility standard governs pleading sufficiency)
- Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89 (U.S. Supreme Court 2007) (liberal pleading standard for pro se plaintiffs)
- Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265 (U.S. Supreme Court 1986) (nonconclusory factual allegations required)
- Kowal v. MCI Commc'ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (courts do not accept legal conclusions dressed as facts)
- Chinn, District of Columbia v., 839 A.2d 701 (D.C. 2003) (duplicative claims should be dismissed pre-trial)
- Fort Lincoln Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055 (D.C. 2008) (duplicative or overlapping claims may complicate remedies)
- Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (U.S. Supreme Court 1972) (pro se pleadings held to less stringent standards)