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

1,266 chars

3
         We review the trial court’s grant of summary judgment de novo and apply
the same standard as that of the trial court, asking whether the movant established
that there is no genuine dispute of a material fact and that he is entitled to judgment
as a matter of law. Hamilton v. Howard Univ., 960 A.2d 308, 313 (D.C. 2008).
For there to be a genuine dispute of a material fact, the evidence must show that a
reasonable jury could find that fact in favor of the nonmoving party. Sibley v. St.
Albans Sch., 134 A.3d 789, 809 (D.C. 2016). Neither party here disputes a fact
material to the judicial-proceedings privilege. This case, therefore, presents a pure
question of law.
      4
          Arneja v. Gildar, 541 A.2d 621, 623 (D.C. 1988); see also Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 587 (1997) (extending the privilege to “[a] party to a private
litigation”).
      5
          Arneja, 541 A.2d at 623.
      6
         Mazanderan v. McGranery, 490 A.2d 180, 181-82 (D.C. 1984) (Hacker’s
License Appeal Board, an administrative body that heard complaints about taxi
drivers); see also Arneja, 541 A.2d at 623 (District of Columbia Rental
                                                               (continued…)
                                           5

Other Sections in This Document (225)

Full Text