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
1,600 charsThe trial court ruled that Mr. Pajic had failed to “allege[ ] the breach of any cognizable duty owed to [him] by [Foote Properties].” But in his verified answer and counterclaim, Mr. Pajic alleged that Foote Properties failed to timely repair both his air conditioning, when it broke down in the height of summer, and a leak and hole in his bathroom ceiling. These allegations, if credited (as they must be at the 12(b)(6) stage), constitute violations of the D.C. Housing Regulations, and in turn a breach of the warranty of habitability, which must be read into all leases. 14 DCMR § 301.1 (2012); see also Javins v. First Nat’l Realty Corp., 428 F.2d 1071, 1082 (D.C.Cir.1970). Mr. Pajic did not specifically reference the implied warranty of habitability, but he did assert that these problems founded his breach of contract counterclaim and gave him grounds for a reduction in rent. These allegations sufficiently set forth “the legal elements of a viable claim,” Potomac Dev. Corp., 28 A.3d at 543, particularly in light of the “latitude” that we afford to pro se litigants in matters of pleading. See Padou v. District of Columbia, 998 A.2d 286, 292 (D.C.2010) (“ ‘[p ]ro se litigants are allowed more latitude than litigants represented by counsel to correct defects in ... pleadings’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting Reade v. Saradji, 994 A.2d 368, 373 (D.C.2010))); see also MacLeod v. Georgetown Univ. Med. Ctr., 736 A.2d 977, 980 (D.C.1999) (recognizing that “[i]n matters involving pleadings, ... pro se litigants are not always held to the same standards as are applied to lawyers”).