D.C. Code § 11-921

Section 11-921 gives the D.C. Superior Court jurisdiction over civil actions brought in the District of Columbia, but does not provide subject-matter jurisdiction in the federal district court.

Odutola v. Floyd · filed 2022-09-23

Starting with those provisions of the D.C. Code, neither provides subject-matter jurisdiction to this Court, which is the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Instead, the first code provision explains that the Superior Court for the District of Columbia has jurisdiction over certain civil actions brought in the District of Columbia. D.C. Code Ann. § 11-921 (West) ("Except as provided in subsection (b), the Superior Court has jurisdiction of any civil action or other matter (at law or in equity) brought in the District of Columbia."). That provision does not serve as a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction for the federal courts.

Section 11-921(b)(1) excludes from the Superior Court’s general jurisdiction matters over which a federal court has exclusive jurisdiction.

Sum-Slaughter v. FINRA, Inc. · filed 2024-08-15(b)(1)

“As a court of general jurisdiction, the Superior Court has jurisdiction of any civil action or other matter (at law or in equity) brought in the District of Columbia unless jurisdiction is vested exclusively in a federal court. ... Ms. Sum-Slaughter’s claims therefore “aris[e] under” federal law within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal district courts pursuant to Section 27(a) of the Exchange Act. ... On the ground that the Superior Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, we affirm its dismissal of Ms. Sum-Slaughter’s complaint.”

D.C. Code § 11-921 does not provide a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction in federal courts.

Evans v. Adams, Morris & Sessing · filed 2024-09-18

This provision, however, “does not serve as a basis for subject-matter jurisdiction for the federal courts.”

Section 11-921(a) gives the Superior Court broad general jurisdiction over civil actions and matters at law or in equity brought in the District, including substantive challenges to an initiative's proper-subject determination.

Wilson v. Bowser · filed 2025-02-06(a)

We hold that the Superior Court separately had jurisdiction to entertain that challenge under D.C. Code § 11-921(a).

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court civil jurisdiction that is not limited by its allocation of cases among divisions and branches.

Ali Baba Co., Inc. v. Wilco, Inc. · filed 1984-10-10

But there is no jurisdictional limitation prohibiting one division or branch from considering matters more appropriately considered in another, and dismissal of an action is proper only where none of the divisions possess a statutory basis for the assertion of jurisdiction.

Section 11-921(a) gives Superior Court divisions general civil and equity jurisdiction; the Family Division may enforce a marital property agreement with a rational connection to its responsibilities even if the agreement was not merged into the divorce decree.

Clay v. Faison · filed 1990-12-21(a)

This court has long held that there is no jurisdictional bar to one division of the Superior Court entertaining an action more appropriately considered in another division, so long as doing so does not violate the statute or rules of the court and the claim has a rational nexus to a subject matter within the responsibility of that division.

Section 11-921(a) gives the Superior Court general jurisdiction over civil actions at law or in equity involving local law, including equitable claims against public officials.

Martin v. District of Columbia Courts · filed 2000-05-11(a)

The Superior Court is “a court of general jurisdiction with the power to adjudicate any civil action at law or in equity involving local law.” ... D.C.Code § 11-921(a) (1995). The Superior Court’s jurisdiction under this provision presumptively extends to claims, such as the one Martin presents, for equitable relief from allegedly unlawful actions by public officials.

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court jurisdiction over civil actions involving WMATA.

Qasim v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority · filed 1983-03-08

D.C.Code § 11-921 (1981) gives the Superior Court plenary jurisdiction over all civil actions brought in the District of Columbia, Reichman v. Franklin Simon Corp., 392 A.2d 9, 12 (D.C.1978), and no limiting language appears in this jurisdictional grant to preclude jurisdiction over actions involving WMATA.

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court general jurisdiction over common law claims for relief in the absence of legislative action.

Powell v. Washington Land Co., Inc. · filed 1996-11-07

In the absence of legislative action, the Superior Court has general jurisdiction under D.C.Code § 11-921 over common law claims for relief.

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court subject matter jurisdiction over a civil action brought in the District even when the events and both parties are in Virginia, unless jurisdiction is exclusively federal.

Begum v. Auvongazeb · filed 1997-06-26

The Superior Court also clearly had subject matter jurisdiction over the claim, irrespective of whether the underlying event took place in Virginia and both parties resided there: “[T]he Superior Court has jurisdiction of any civil action or other matter (at law or in equity) brought in the District of Columbia” unless jurisdiction is vested exclusively in a federal court.

Section 11-921’s limits on civil jurisdiction do not prevent a federal court from entering an abatement order as part of a criminal sentence.

United States v. Wade · filed 1997-12-10(a)(3)

As to defendants’ citation to D.C.Code § ll-921(a)(3) (exclusive Superior Court jurisdiction over matters involving real property), § 11-922 (same, matters involving common law claims for relief), and § 11-921 (same, matters pending in the Tax Court) as provisions preventing this court from exercising subject matter jurisdiction, this court responds by noting that all of these provisions involve limits on the civil jurisdiction of the courts, and that the Order of Abatement is entered pursuant to the criminal sentences of Charles and Eugene Wade.

Section 11-921(a)(1) transfers cases begun in the Court of General Sessions to the Superior Court without raising their $10,000 recovery limit.

Newman v. Coakley · filed 1972-01-11(a)(1)

We regard the inclusion of this provision in § 11-922 and the absence of a corresponding provision in § 11-921 as significant. Manifestly, it reveals a deliberate intent on the part of Congress to limit recovery in cases originally docketed in General Sessions to the maximum amount then in effect.

Section 11-921(a)(5) gives Superior Court jurisdiction over trustee accountings at law or in equity, including pending matters begun in District Court before the thirty-month transition period.

In Re Estate of Shutack · filed 1983-11-03(a)(5)

An examination of § ll-921(a)(5) shows that both subsections (A) and (B) include “any matter” within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court regardless of whether such matters are “at law or equity.” This broad language by its terms is inclusive and subsumes part (A)(vii) of Section 921(a)(5) (“involving ... trustees required to account to the court”) as a matter either of law or equity. ... Given the purposes of Congress in enacting the Act to transfer all matters of a local nature, and the legislative context in which such transfer was effected, we conclude that the transfer of jurisdiction under Section ll-921(a)(5)(B), was not confined to matters beginning only during the thirty-month transition period.

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court jurisdiction to decide whether DHCD may use § 5-513 to remove an unpermitted sign when that question is not a contested case.

Auger v. D.C. Board of Appeals & Review · filed 1984-03-30

The Superior Court has jurisdiction under D.C.Code § 11-921 (1981) to declare whether DHCD has authority to use § 5-513 to take down an unpermitted sign on real property, for that lone question does not present a “contested case.”

Section 11-921(a) gives the Superior Court general equity jurisdiction over paternity actions without a support claim when the complaint presents a justiciable controversy.

Matter of Dm · filed 1989-07-13(a)

Similarly, in the instant case, since neither custody, divorce nor child support is sought, we hold that the jurisdictional basis of appellant's action is the general equity jurisdiction of the Superior Court, and that there is no statutory bar to a non-support paternity action. ... Accordingly, we hold that the Superior Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate paternity where a complaint is filed that pleads a sufficient cause of action, without a claim for support, showing it is not an abstract controversy.

Section 11-921(a) gives the Superior Court general equity jurisdiction to consider challenges to a proposed initiative once the action is before it.

Hessey v. Burden · filed 1992-12-29(a)

With minor exceptions not pertinent here, “the Superior Court has jurisdiction of any civil action or other matter (at law or in equity) brought in the District of Columbia.” D.C.Code § 11-921(a) (1989). ... The case of Hessey v. Burden was not originally brought to the Superior Court under that court’s general equity jurisdiction but, rather, under the specific provisions of D.C.Code § 1-1320(b)(3). Once it was there, however, the court had jurisdiction, as a court of equity, to consider the opponents’ remaining challenges to the proposed initiative.

Section 11-921 grants the Superior Court general civil jurisdiction, which the D.C. Council cannot alter.

District of Columbia v. Group Insurance Administration · filed 1993-10-28

In 1970, Congress passed the District of Columbia Court Reorganization Act, Pub.L. No. 91-358, 84 Stat. 473 (1971), which conferred upon our “local courts ... powers analogous to those of state courts” and gave “the Superior Court plenary jurisdiction over civil matters brought in the District of Columbia” via D.C.Code § 11-921 (1989). ... Only Congress has the authority to alter this grant of general jurisdiction to the Superior Court.

Section 11-921(a) gives the Superior Court general equity jurisdiction over a paternity action without a support claim when the complaint presents a justiciable controversy.

In re D.M. · filed 1989-07-13(a)

Similarly, in the instant case, since neither custody, divorce nor child support is sought, we hold that the jurisdictional basis of appellant’s action is the general equity jurisdiction of the Superior Court, and that there is no statutory bar to a non-support paternity action.

Section 11-921(a)(6) gives the Superior Court jurisdiction over claims sounding in equity.

Prince Construction Co. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board · filed 2006-02-09(a)(6)

The Superior Court, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over claims that sound in equity. ... Prince necessarily admitted that its action in Superior Court was equitable in nature, because that court would not have had jurisdiction to hear the dispute or grant $2,506,487.00 in relief if the claim was contractual.

Section 11-921(a)(2) has expired and cannot provide a basis for Superior Court jurisdiction.

Walton v. District of Columbia · filed 1996-02-01(a)(2)

Moreover, he cannot obtain jurisdiction under § 11-921(a)(2) because it has expired.

Section 11-921 gives the Superior Court general civil jurisdiction; its functional divisions, including the Landlord-Tenant Branch, are parts of the same court.

Threatt v. Winston · filed 2006-09-21

The establishment of the functional ... divisions of the Superior Court — including the Landlord-Tenant Branch — serves administrative convenience but does not establish the individual branches as separate courts or delimit their power as tribunals of the Superior Court with general jurisdiction over civil actions at law or in equity in the District of Columbia. D.C.Code § 11-921 (2001).

Section 11-921(a)(3)(A)(ii) gives the Superior Court jurisdiction over a condemnation action even when the property owner claims the taking lacks a valid public purpose.

Franco v. District of Columbia · filed 2012-03-15(a)(3)(A)(ii)

Appellants confuse subject-matter jurisdiction with the merits of the action. The Superior Court’s authority to review the allegedly illegal exercise of eminent domain is clearly established. D.C.Code § 11-921 (a)(3)(A)(ii) (2001); D.C.Code § 16-1303 (2001); D.C.Code § 16-1311 (2001). ... But even if appellants’ allegation that the Council authorized the illegal exercise of eminent domain under false pretext proved meritorious, this invalid purpose would not defeat or modify the Superior Court’s jurisdictional authority.

Section 11-921(a)(3)(B) gives the Superior Court jurisdiction over civil matters involving an appeal from or petition for review of a District tax assessment.

Johnson v. District of Columbia · filed 2022-09-12(a)(3)(B)

Section 111 of the CRA specifically granted jurisdiction to the Superior Court of the District over “any civil action or other matter, at law or in equity, which involves an appeal from or petition for review of any assessment of tax (or civil penalty thereon) made by the District of Columbia.” Jd. at 10-11 (quoting Court Reform Act, Title I, § 111 (codified as D.C. Code § 11-921(a)(3)(B) (1981))).