Williams v. District of Columbia Department of Public Works
65 A.3d 100
D.C.2013Background
- Petitioner seeks review of an OAH decision imposing $5,000 in fines for four solid-waste violations and $2,500 in statutory penalties for late responses.
- Two notices issued April 6, 2009 (K161105 for 21 DCMR 700.3; K161106 for 21 DCMR 705.1) with $2,000 and $500 fines were followed by two more notices April 17, 2009 (K161638 for 21 DCMR 700.3; K161639 for 21 DCMR 705.1) with $2,000 and $500 fines.
- Petitioner admitted liability by signing all four notices with explanations, claiming explanations limited relief to reduction or suspension of fines, not liability.
- ALJ found petitioner liable for the violations and ordered $7,500 in fines and penalties plus statutory penalties for untimely responses.
- This court reverses in part: the first two violations were not properly classified as the same violation within 60 days, so the double fines are inappropriate on those records; the case is remanded for recalculation and further proceedings.
- Issues of service of process and the precise imposition of penalties remain open and require ALJ reconsideration on remand.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 'same violation within 60 days' designation for K161105 and K161106 was properly supported. | Williams contends there were no proper predicates for classifying as 60-day repeats. | DPW asserts admissions and record support the repeats and the penalties. | Not warranted on this record; remanded for proper evidentiary basis. |
| Whether signing 'Admit with Explanation' bars challenges to the double fines. | Williams argues admission extended to all issues including 60-day repeats. | DPW argues admissions preclude contest of liability and the 60-day issue. | Admissions preclude liability for underlying violations but do not conclusively waive 60-day double-fine challenge; exceptional-review applied to avoid manifest injustice. |
| Whether penalties for untimely responses are warranted given the service and timing issues. | Timeliness not clearly established due to disputed service dates; penalties may be improper. | Record shows untimely responses justify penalties. | Remanded to ALJ to reevaluate penalties consistent with law after reconsideration. |
| Whether service of process for K161105 and K161106 was proper. | Petitioner challenged service timing and method. | Records show service by certified mail and posting, but some aspects are unclear. | Remanded for ALJ reconsideration on service issues. |
Key Cases Cited
- Goodman v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm'n, 573 A.2d 1293 (D.C. 1990) (exceptional circumstances permit addressing issues not raised to avoid manifest injustice)
- Sims v. District of Columbia, 933 A.2d 305 (D.C. 2007) (claims must be raised at agency level; Goodman exception applies)
- Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957 (D.C.2002) (agency hearing process and appellate standards)
- Hill v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 717 A.2d 909 (D.C.1998) (remand when agency relies on misapprehension of law)
- Nelson v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 530 A.2d 1193 (D.C.1987) (adequate opportunity to present arguments on appeal; ambiguous agency notices)