Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Citation
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Parent Document
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Jurisdiction
- DC (municipal)
- Effective Date
- 2013-07-25
Other Sections in This Document (33)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
- Pajic v. Foote Properties, LLC, 72 A.3d 140 (2013)
Full Text
1,830 charsMr. Pajic put forward his version of the facts in his verified answer and counterclaim as well as his Opposition to Motion for Summary Judgment, which contained, inter alia, portions of his deposition. Rule 56(c) of the Superior Court Civil Rules allows consideration of pleadings, depositions, and affidavits to determine if there is a genuine issue of material fact. In addition, “a sworn complaint ‘is tantamount to an affidavit’ and may therefore be sufficient to raise a genuine issue of fact.” Raskauskas v. Temple Realty Co., 589 A.2d 17, 26 (D.C.1991) (quoting Thompson v. Seton Invs., 533 A.2d 1255, 1257 (D.C.1987)) (overturning a grant of summary judgment on a counterclaim when the appellant’s “sworn complaint disputed all of the material facts relied on by appellees’ summary judgment motion”). The trial court nevertheless determined that Mr. Pajic had “proffered no evidence that would be admissible at trial demonstrating that a material fact remained genuinely in dispute with respect to his claims of alleged rent credits and cash payments.” The court cited several decisions from this court in which we have held that a non-mOving party cannot rest on .eonclusory denials but must offer sufficient evidence to contest material facts. See, e.g., Boulton v. Institute of Int’l Educ., 808 A.2d 499, 502 (D.C.2002). These cases are inap-posite, however, in light of Mr. Pajic’s specific sworn assertions that he had been given rent abatements to compensate for issues with his apartment and had made rent payments for which he had not been credited. The court’s concerns about admissibility were also misplaced; we see nothing to prevent Mr. Pajic from taking the stand at trial and testifying to the assertions in his deposition and sworn pleadings.11 In short, on this record, summary judgment was inappropriate.