268 F. Supp. 3d 196
D.D.C.2017Background
- On Sept. 25, 2011 a sewer pipe burst beneath the America Restaurant at Union Station, causing water/debris damage to a WMATA-owned traction power substation (TPSS) that powers part of the Red Line; WMATA repaired the TPSS and seeks to recover its costs.
- WMATA filed a one-count negligence suit on Dec. 23, 2014 against the restaurant operators and Union Station property/management entities, seeking ~$6,000,000 in damages.
- Defendants moved to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), arguing WMATA’s claim is time-barred by D.C.’s three-year residual statute of limitations (D.C. Code § 12-301(8)).
- Defendants concede WMATA is a D.C. agency but contend the statutory exemption for “actions brought by the District of Columbia government” applies only when the District sues to vindicate a public right — which they say WMATA’s suit does not.
- WMATA argues the claim is timely because (1) WMATA qualifies for the D.C. § 12-301 exemption as an instrumentality pursuing a public purpose, (2) Maryland/Virginia common-law nullum tempus may shelter WMATA, and (3) alternatively a five-year property-related limit could apply.
- The Court held the suit is exempt from D.C. statute of limitations under § 12-301 because WMATA is an instrumentality charged with a public purpose and this action seeks to replenish funds spent to repair public transit infrastructure (a public right); motions to dismiss denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether WMATA is eligible for D.C. Code § 12-301’s exemption from statutes of limitations | WMATA is an instrumentality of the District with a public purpose and thus qualifies for the statutory exemption | Even if technically an agency, WMATA should not get the District’s nullum tempus benefit in this case | Held: WMATA is eligible; D.C. case law permits subsidiaries performing public purposes to invoke the exemption |
| Whether the suit vindicates a "public right" so as to trigger the § 12-301 exemption | WMATA spent money to repair core transit infrastructure (TPSS) advancing its charter public purpose; the public has a strong interest in safe/operational transit | Repairing transit is a proprietary/commercial function and thus not a public-rights vindication | Held: Suit vindicates a public right — recovery replenishes funds used for a public function — so §12-301 applies |
| Whether nullum tempus under Maryland/Virginia law independently bars limitations | WMATA asserts Maryland and Virginia common-law nullum tempus immunities that could be absolute | Defendants argue those state immunities shouldn’t apply to a D.C. law claim in D.C. courts | Court declined to decide Maryland/Virginia immunity issue and resolved case on D.C. §12-301 grounds |
| Whether a longer (five-year) limitations period governing asbestos/toxic real-property claims applies | WMATA alternatively argued a five-year property/toxic-substance period applies | Defendants argued three-year residual period governs | Court did not decide because it held the claim fully exempt under §12-301 |
Key Cases Cited
- Guaranty Trust Co. of N.Y. v. United States, 304 U.S. 126 (explains nullum tempus and that time does not run against the sovereign)
- Metropolitan R.R. Co. v. District of Columbia, 132 U.S. 1 (municipalities generally not entitled to nullum tempus at common law)
- United States v. Beebe, 127 U.S. 338 (nullum tempus applies when government enforces a public right)
- E. I. Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. Davis, 264 U.S. 456 (government suits arising from operation of transit/railroad exempted)
- Morris v. WMATA, 781 F.2d 218 (describes WMATA as interstate instrumentality and federal-law framework for WMATA immunity)
- District of Columbia v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp., 572 A.2d 394 (D.C. Court of Appeals articulates public-rights test for §12-301)
- D.C. Water & Sewer Auth. v. Delon Hampton & Assocs., 851 A.2d 410 (applies Owens-Corning and discusses §12-301 legislative purpose)
- Hartford Acc. & Indem. Co. v. Pro-Football, Inc., 127 F.3d 1111 (federal court must follow D.C. Court of Appeals’ construction of D.C. statutes)