Pietrangelo v. Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, LLP, 2013 D.C. App. LEXIS 154

Background

Pietrangelo, a pro se attorney, sued WilmerHale in DC Superior Court over its pro bono DADT representation and related matters, asserting 23 counts of claims including malpractice and fiduciary breaches.
The trial court dismissed 20 counts under Rule 12(b)(6); summary judgment then resolved one more count in WilmerHale's favor, and a jury trial later favored WilmerHale on the remaining two counts.
Pietrangelo engaged in lengthy contemptuous conduct during the case, including denying authorship of an email and refusing to answer questions despite court orders.
The trial judge sanctioned Pietrangelo by instructing the jury to draw adverse inferences about his testimony rather than dismissing the case, though she noted dismissal could be appropriate.
On appeal, Pietrangelo challenged numerous rulings; the DC Court of Appeals affirmed, endorsing the trial court’s discretion and sanctioning power, while warning that contumacious conduct can justify dismissal.
The decision affirms the dismissal of Counts 1-11, 15-19, and 21-23, the grant of summary judgment on Count 12, and the denial of further relief on Counts 13-14, with the court reiterating that dismissal is an appropriate sanction for serious judicial abuse.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Pietrangelo’s contumacious conduct warranted dismissal as a sanction	Pietrangelo argues the court erred by sanctioning him rather than addressing merits.	WilmerHale contends contumacious behavior justifies dismissal under 41(b) and supports upholding sanctions.	Affirmed; sanction of dismissal warranted given contumacious conduct.
Whether Counts 1-11, 15-19, and 21-23 were properly dismissed for failure to state a claim	Pietrangelo contends the allegations, if proven, support claims.	WilmerHale argues the pleadings fail plausibly to show proximate causation, harm, or required elements.	Affirmed; court properly dismissed these counts for lack of plausible claims.
Whether the grant of summary judgment on Count 12 and the denial of summary judgment on Counts 13-14 were correct	Pietrangelo asserts errors in summary-judgment rulings affecting breach of the alleged agreement.	WilmerHale maintains there was no evidence supporting Count 12 and no motion for summary judgment on Counts 13-14.	Affirmed; Count 12 supported dismissal; Counts 13-14 lacked procedural basis for reversal.
Whether the trial judge properly managed discovery, witness conduct, and evidentiary rulings	Pietrangelo challenges various management decisions as prejudicial and improper.	WilmerHale defends the broad discretion of trial judges in discovery and trial management.	Affirmed; no abuse of discretion found in discovery, disqualification, narrative-testimony, redirect, or evidence rulings.
Whether the Count 23 choice-of-law ruling applying DC CPPA law was correct	Pietrangelo argues NY/MA consumer-protection claims should apply.	WilmerHale argues DC law governs under Restatement conflicts analysis due to most significant relationship and CPPA exclusion.	Affirmed; DC law applies; CPPA excludes lawyers, making DC law controlling.

Key Cases Cited

Synanon Found., Inc. v. Bernstein, 503 A.2d 1254 (D.C.1986) (dismissal as sanction for intolerable conduct allowed)
District of Columbia v. Serafin, 617 A.2d 516 (D.C.1992) (extreme sanctions limited, but permissible in proper context)
LaPrade v. Lehman, 490 A.2d 1151 (D.C.1985) (court may dismiss for failure to comply with orders)
Wilson v. United States, 421 U.S. 309 (Supreme Court 1975) (contempt power to vindicate court authority)
Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979) (trial court broad discretion in managing trials)
Chase v. Gilbert, 499 A.2d 1203 (D.C.1985) (proximate causation; speculative outcomes insufficient)
In re Curseen, 890 A.2d 191 (D.C.2006) (pleading standards; plausibility standard)
Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531 (D.C.2011) (pleading plausibility standard)