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
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5146856/pajic-v-foote-properties-llc/ ↗

Full Text

769 chars

Turning to the trial court’s dismissal of Mr. Pajic’s counterclaim, our review is, again, de novo. Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531, 543 (D.C.2011). We, like the trial court, look to see if “ ‘a complaint ... set forth sufficient information to outline the legal elements of a viable claim for relief or to permit inferences to be drawn from the complaint that indicate that these elements exist.’ ” Id. at 545 (quoting Williams v. District of Columbia, 9 A.3d 484, 488 (D.C.2010)). We do “ ‘not require detailed fac*148tual allegations,’ ” but the complaint should contain “ ‘more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.’ ” Id. at 544 (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937).

Other Sections in This Document (33)

Full Text