Section 11-721

Citation: Section 11-721
Parent Document: Brown v. Pearson (2020)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2020-04-02
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4741602/brown-v-pearson/ ↗

Full Text

2,081 chars

35
         Nor do we have reason to assume that Mr. Pearson will receive a substantial
additional award in the matters he still has pending before the RHC. To the extent
he claims a likelihood of success based on his claims that Ms. Brown’s violations
were willful and that the statute of limitations does not apply to his claim of rent
overcharges, we note that the ALJ rejected the former claim on remand from the
RHC and the RHC rejected the latter one in resolving Mr. Pearson’s first appeal. Cf.
Dameron v. Capitol House Assocs. Ltd. P’ship, 431 A.2d 580, 584 n.6 (D.C. 1981)
(“When determining the appealability of orders which potentially threaten
irreparable harm, courts must often examine the merits of the underlying claim.”),
overturned on other grounds by McQueen, 547 A.2d 172.
      36
          Although Ms. Brown theoretically could maintain a damages action against
Mr. Pearson in the future, Mr. Pearson’s representations of his own financial
situation lead us to believe he is possibly insolvent and will be unable to satisfy a
future judgment, supporting our conclusion that she will suffer irreparable harm if
denied injunctive (or quasi-injunctive) relief. See, e.g., Deckert v. Indep. Shares
Corp., 311 U.S. 282, 290 (1940) (“[T]here were allegations that Independence was
insolvent and its assets in danger of dissipation or depletion. This being so, the legal
remedy against Independence, without recourse to the fund in the hands of
Pennsylvania, would be inadequate.”); CRP/Extell Parcel I, L.P. v. Cuomo, 394 F.
App’x 779, 781 (2d Cir. 2010) (“[W]e have held that a finding of irreparable harm
may lie in connection with an action for money damages where the claim involves
an obligation owed by an insolvent or a party on the brink of insolvency.” (citing
Brenntag Int’l Chems., Inc. v. Bank of India, 175 F.3d 245, 249-50 (2d Cir. 1999)));
Hughes Network Sys., Inc. v. InterDigital Commc’ns Corp., 17 F.3d 691, 694 (4th
                                                                        (…continued)
                                         20

Other Sections in This Document (332)

Full Text