204 A.3d 1272
D.C.2019Background
- SunTrust Bank sued members of the Strong family (co-trustees) seeking court approval to resign as co-trustee of the Strong Family Trust and a complete release from liability.
- The Strong Family counterclaimed under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), alleging SunTrust made false representations about a fee increase, unilateral fee-setting power, and entitlement to a broad release.
- The Strong Family never paid the increased fees and did not sign the release SunTrust proposed.
- The Superior Court granted summary judgment for SunTrust on the CPPA counterclaim; the appeal addressed only the standing issue for the CPPA claim.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated the portion of the judgment addressing the CPPA counterclaim and remanded with instructions to dismiss that counterclaim for lack of Article III standing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Strong Family has Article III standing to pursue a CPPA claim | Incurring attorney’s fees defending against SunTrust’s suit and being subjected to alleged misrepresentations constitutes a concrete injury | No concrete, particularized injury shown: fees not fairly traceable to alleged misrepresentations; lawsuit sought permissible court-approved resignation and relief under the Uniform Trust Code | Dismiss CPPA counterclaim for lack of standing; Strong Family did not allege a concrete injury-in-fact |
| Whether mere statutory CPPA violations suffice for private standing | CPPA violations confer a right to sue even if no concrete harm occurred | Following Spokeo, statutory injury alone is insufficient; must show concrete and particularized injury | Statutory violation alone insufficient; must allege concrete injury tied to defendant’s conduct |
| Whether attorney’s fees incurred here are a concrete injury | Fees from responding to SunTrust’s lawsuit are a concrete injury | Fees were incurred because of a court proceeding (resignation action), not because of the alleged pre-suit misrepresentations; fee allocation is for the court to decide | Attorney’s fees in this context are not fairly traceable to the alleged misrepresentations and do not establish standing |
| Whether the court may reach merits before jurisdictional standing is established | N/A (Strong Family proceeded on merits in trial court) | Jurisdictional prerequisites, including standing, must be resolved before merits | Court must resolve standing before merits; vacated merits ruling and remanded to dismiss for lack of standing |
Key Cases Cited
- Grayson v. AT & T Corp., 15 A.3d 219 (D.C. 2011) (D.C. courts apply Article III standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (U.S. 2016) (statutory violations do not automatically satisfy Article III; injury must be concrete and particularized)
- Hancock v. Urban Outfitters, 830 F.3d 511 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (dismissing CPPA claim for failure to allege cognizable injury)
- Demarais v. Gurstel Chargo, P.A., 869 F.3d 685 (8th Cir. 2017) (attorney’s fees awarded to defend against allegedly abusive litigation may support standing in certain FDCPA contexts)