Skip to main content
DRAFT FOR ATTORNEY REVIEW — NOT FINAL

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

Other Sections in This Document (74)

Full Text

939 chars
In sum, we hold that the DCRA was acting in a judicial capacity when it heard and ruled on Sindram’s petition alleging Borger’s termination of his Section 8 HAP contract was retaliatory. We further hold that the issue of the legality of Borger’s unilateral termination of the HAP contract was both “actually litigated” and “essential” to the judgment of the DCRA. Thus, we hold that under collateral estoppel principles the issues regarding termination of the HAP contract raised by Sindram before the Superior Court were procedurally precluded and that the trial judge erred in granting Sin-dram’s motion for summary judgment and denying Borger’s motion for partial summary judgment. We also hold that the issue of source-of-income discrimination was not “actually litigated” or “essential” to the ALJ’s ruling and thus was not removed by collateral estoppel principles from consideration in the subsequent Superior Court litigation. III.