Wang v. 1624 U Street, Inc., 20-CV-324

Wang owns a condo unit directly above Chi Cha Lounge and protested Chi Cha’s 2016 liquor-license renewal before the D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, alleging excessive noise.
Wang and Chi Cha entered a settlement: paragraph two required soundproofing per a contractor proposal; paragraph six required Chi Cha to maintain communication and take reasonable measures to address music complaints raised by Wang.
The Board accepted proof from Chi Cha that it completed the sound mitigation (to the Board’s satisfaction) and renewed the license; Wang’s administrative appeal was unsuccessful.
Wang sued in Superior Court for breach of paragraph two (failure to provide proof), breach of paragraph six (failure to respond to complaints), private nuisance, and negligence; Chi Cha moved to dismiss, asserting release/res judicata and collateral estoppel.
The trial court dismissed for failure to state a claim on preclusion grounds; Wang appealed. The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding res judicata and collateral estoppel did not bar her surviving claims (para six breach, nuisance, negligence).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether res judicata bars Wang’s civil claims	Wang: Board protest and civil tort/contract claims are different; damages and para-six breaches arose after Board proceeding	Chi Cha: Settlement/proceedings before Board covered same noise issues; Wang had opportunity to litigate	Held: No. Res judicata inapplicable because (1) the release targeted protests only, (2) para-six breach and damages post-dated Board proceeding or were not available before the Board
Whether collateral estoppel precludes relitigation of issues decided by the Board	Wang: Key issues were never actually litigated or decided on the merits before the Board	Chi Cha: Board decision and settlement foreclose relitigation	Held: No. Collateral estoppel fails because issues (para-six breach, nuisance, negligence) were not actually litigated or resolved; settlement did not show intent to finally decide those issues
Whether the settlement’s release foreclosed civil claims or para-six breach	Wang: Release only barred future protests; it did not waive civil damages or claims for failures occurring later	Chi Cha: Settlement resolved the noise dispute and thus precludes later claims	Held: Release captioned and phrased to bar protests only; it did not waive Wang’s right to sue for damages or for post-settlement breaches of paragraph six

Patton v. Klein, 746 A.2d 866 (D.C. 2000) (elements for claim preclusion analysis)
Elwell v. Elwell, 947 A.2d 1136 (D.C. 2008) (ripeness and when claims could have been raised)
Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957 (D.C. 2002) (standard of review for 12(b)(6) and preclusion discussion)
Whiting v. Wells Fargo Bank, 230 A.3d 916 (D.C. 2020) (settlements ordinarily do not give rise to issue preclusion absent intent)
Hurd v. District of Columbia, 864 F.3d 671 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (preclusion aims to limit repeated bites at the apple; forum limitations matter)
Molovinsky v. Monterey Coop., Inc., 689 A.2d 531 (D.C. 1997) (res judicata where plaintiff chose initial forum)
Osei-Kuffnor v. Argana, 618 A.2d 712 (D.C. 1992) (similar small-claims-to-superior-court res judicata analysis)
Shin v. Portals Confederation Corp., 728 A.2d 615 (D.C. 1999) (preclusion of claims a plaintiff could have raised earlier)
Davis v. Davis, 663 A.2d 499 (D.C. 1995) (elements for collateral estoppel)
Washington Medical Center v. Holle, 573 A.2d 1269 (D.C. 1990) (collateral estoppel framework)
Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392 (2000) (settlement agreements ordinarily do not produce issue preclusion unless parties intend it)
Choharis v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co., 961 A.2d 1080 (D.C. 2008) (tort duty must be independent of contract)