320 F. Supp. 3d 99
D.C. Cir.2018Background
- Plaintiff Sarah Pleznac rented an apartment from Equity Residential at 3003 Van Ness (2013–2017); initial ad showed a discounted rent with a large "rent concession" deducted from a higher base rate.
- Pleznac alleges Equity concealed the true (pre-concession) base rent and then calculated post-renewal increases on that higher base, coercing her into successive one-year renewals at unexpectedly higher rents.
- Pleznac also claims Equity filed multiple meritless rent-collection suits against her, reported false adverse information to credit reporting agencies, and refused to correct disputed reports.
- She brought a putative class action asserting CPPA and fraud claims, FCRA violations, defamation, malicious prosecution, breach of contract, IIED, and a standalone punitive-damages demand; Equity removed the case and moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court found some claims time-barred or preempted but allowed others to proceed past the motion-to-dismiss stage.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CPPA & common-law fraud: accrual/limitations (continuing tort) | Pleznac: continuing tort; injurious acts occurred within 3 years via renewals | Equity: Pleznac knew of deception by Sept 2013; claims accrued then and are time-barred | Dismissed — claims accrued when she received the 2013 renewal notice; continuing-tort doctrine inapplicable |
| FCRA (§1681s-2(b)): pleading notice chain | Pleznac: she disputed credit report with TransUnion in Mar 2017; furnisher was notified | Equity: plaintiff fails to plausibly allege TransUnion notified Equity | Allowed to proceed — court permits inference that TransUnion notified Equity at pleading stage |
| Defamation (state law) vs. FCRA preemption | Pleznac: defamatory credit reports harmed her reputation | Equity: reports to CRAs are governed by FCRA and preempt state claims | Dismissed — defamation claim preempted by FCRA §1681t(b)(1)(F) |
| Malicious prosecution: special injury element | Pleznac: multiple baseless successive suits caused special injury | Equity: plaintiff fails to plead special injury | Allowed to proceed — successive malicious suits plead special injury under Soffos rule; third suit falls within limitations period |
| Breach of contract: pleadings sufficiency | Pleznac: settlement agreement barred Equity’s rent suits | Equity: allegations are too skeletal | Allowed to proceed — complaint adequately alleges existence and terms of settlement agreement |
| IIED: outrageousness and severe distress | Pleznac: repeated harassment, refusal to repair, false bills, and retaliatory suits caused extreme distress | Equity: allegations insufficiently extreme | Allowed to proceed — facts plausibly state IIED at pleading stage |
| Punitive damages as standalone claim | Pleznac: intended punitive damages as remedy, not separate cause | Equity: punitive damages cannot be a freestanding claim | Dismissed as separate claim; punitive damages remain as potential remedy for tort claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (pleading standard: factual matter to state a plausible claim)
- Beard v. Edmondson & Gallagher, 790 A.2d 541 (D.C. 2002) (continuing tort doctrine elements and accrual principles)
- John McShain, Inc. v. L'Enfant Plaza Props., Inc., 402 A.2d 1222 (D.C. 1979) (continuing-course-of-conduct accrual discussion)
- L'Enfant Plaza East, Inc. v. John McShain, Inc., 359 A.2d 5 (D.C. 1976) (example of continuous trespass accruing over time)
- Cevenini v. Archbishop of Wash., 707 A.2d 768 (D.C. 1998) (accrual when plaintiff first aware of abuse; not delayed by later appreciation)
- Colbert v. Georgetown Univ., 641 A.2d 469 (D.C. 1994) (malpractice accrual when plaintiff became aware of injury)
- Himmelstein v. Comcast of the District, L.L.C., 931 F.Supp.2d 48 (D.D.C. 2013) (infer reporting agency notified furnisher where plaintiff plausibly alleged she disputed with bureau)
- Soffos v. Eaton, 152 F.2d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1945) (two or more successive malicious suits constitute special injury for malicious prosecution)