Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)

Citation: Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Parent Document: Borger Management, Inc. v. Sindram, 886 A.2d 52 (2005)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2005-10-14
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2264284/borger-management-inc-v-sindram/ ↗

Full Text

1,466 chars

We hold that the administrative proceeding before the DCRA was the equivalent of a judicial proceeding and that the issues of fact and law, as they related to the Section 8 preemption issue, were essential to the ALJ’s judgment and were the same Section 8 issues upon which the trial court based its grant of summary judgment in favor of Sindram. Accordingly, without ruling on the merits of Borger’s contentions regarding Section 8 preemption, we conclude that the trial court erred in failing to rule that appellee Sindram’s complaint was procedurally barred on grounds of collateral estoppel, and in failing, accordingly, to grant Borger partial summary judgment. However, as regards Sindram’s alternative claim that Borger’s actions represented source-of-income discrimination, we hold that that issue was not fully litigated before the ALJ and not addressed in his decision and order, and therefore we conclude that the Superior Court was not precluded from considering Sindram’s motion for summary judgment on that ground. The trial court, however, denied Sindram summary judgment on that issue, unable to resolve it on the record before it. We therefore reverse the decision of the trial court denying partial summary judgment to Borger on grounds of Section 8 preemption, but remand for further proceedings on the issue of whether Borger’s actions constituted source-of-income discrimination under the DCHRA. D.C.Code §§ 2-1402.21(a), - 1402.31(c) (2003). I.

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text