Park v. Brahmbhatt (2020)

Citation: Park v. Brahmbhatt (2020)
Parent Document: Park v. Brahmbhatt (2020)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2020-08-13
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/4774864/park-v-brahmbhatt/ ↗

Full Text

1,161 chars

1
          Ms. Park learned of the two memoranda, not through the Bank, but
through discovery in a parallel action against Mr. Brahmbhatt in Superior Court for
sexual assault and harassment. The Bank’s investigative records were confidential
and not released to Ms. Park.
      2
          We treat the trial court’s ruling as granting summary judgment. The trial
court’s order is captioned as an order granting a motion to dismiss, but the court
considered exhibits and evidence not incorporated in Ms. Park’s complaint. See
Clay v. Hanson, 536 A.2d 1097, 1100 n.3 (D.C. 1988) (“Because the parties
presented materials beyond the pleadings which were not excluded by the motions
judge, Hanson’s motion to dismiss under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6) must be
treated as one for summary judgment, and this court must apply the same standards
as the trial court in reviewing a motion for summary judgment.” (internal citations
omitted)). The trial court, at a hearing where the parties were present, indicated
that it would treat the motion to dismiss as a “Rule 56 motion,” and no party
objected to that treatment.
                                          4 I. 3

Other Sections in This Document (225)

Full Text