Sizer v. Velasquez, 270 A.3d 299

Tenants Alison Sizer and Scott Michelman broke an 18‑month lease and located replacement tenants willing to pay $3,100/month ( $200 less than the existing $3,300 rent). The tenants offered to make up the $200/month difference in a lump sum.
Landlords Fabiola Lopez Velasquez and Jose Cuesta Leiva rejected the joint arrangement and insisted the replacements pay $3,300/month; the replacements withdrew. Months later the landlords re-rented the unit for $3,100/month.
Landlords sued Sizer and Michelman for unpaid rent; the tenants asserted failure-to-mitigate as a defense and counterclaimed under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA) for deceptive statements in (a) an October 2016 lease (attorneys’‑fees clause) and (b) a June 2017 early‑termination agreement (stating no duty to mitigate).
A magistrate judge awarded damages to the landlords and dismissed the CPPA claims; the Associate Judge affirmed. The tenants appealed, arguing the landlords failed to mitigate and that the 2019 CPPA amendment creates a private remedy that applies to their claims.
The appellate court held (1) the landlords failed to mitigate by rejecting the joint offer that would have left them monetarily whole, and (2) the 2019 CPPA private‑action amendment cannot be applied retroactively to create private claims for the 2016–2017 conduct. The case is remanded for proceedings consistent with that ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether landlords failed to mitigate damages after tenants broke the lease	Tenants: landlords unreasonably rejected a joint offer (replacements paying $3,100 + tenants’ lump‑sum) that would have left landlords in the same financial position, so mitigation duty breached	Landlords: they had a legitimate business justification (demand full $3,300, seek longer lease/higher future rent); prospective tenants backed out, so mitigation satisfied	Held: Landlords failed to mitigate. Rejecting an offer that would make them whole to pursue a future profit was unreasonable.
Whether the CPPA as amended in 2019 gives tenants a private right of action for landlords’ 2016–2017 deceptive statements (and may be applied retroactively)	Tenants: 2019 amendment creates a private remedy; retroactivity is permissible because the underlying conduct was already prohibited and the Attorney General could have sued earlier	Landlords: binding precedent (Gomez, Falconi‑Sachs) forecloses a private CPPA right in landlord‑tenant matters; applying the 2019 amendment retroactively would increase liability and is impermissible under Landgraf/Hughes	Held: 2019 amendment cannot be applied retroactively to create private causes of action for the 2016–2017 conduct; CPPA counterclaims remain dismissed.

Bolton v. Crowley, Hoge & Fein, P.C., 110 A.3d 575 (D.C. 2015) (explains duty to mitigate damages and limits on recovery for avoidable loss)
Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244 (U.S. 1994) (framework for determining impermissible retroactivity of statutes that change liabilities)
Falconi‑Sachs v. LPF Senate Square, LLC, 142 A.3d 550 (D.C. 2016) (held no private CPPA right in landlord‑tenant relations)
Gomez v. Independent Management of Delaware, Inc., 967 A.2d 1276 (D.C. 2009) (prior decision limiting CPPA private actions in landlord‑tenant context)
Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U.S. 939 (U.S. 1997) (statutory expansion of plaintiff class held impermissibly retroactive in some contexts)
Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (D.C. 2013) (lease clause shifting attorneys’ fees to tenant in litigation is unlawful)
M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310 (D.C. 1971) (lower‑court adherence to precedent; court not free to overturn binding precedent)