District of Columbia Superior Court Class Action Complaint

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT (DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA SUPERIOR COURT)

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

Case No.: [________________________________]

Calendar/Judge: [________________________________]

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff [________________________________] ("Plaintiff"), individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, by and through undersigned counsel, brings this Class Action Complaint against Defendant [________________________________] ("Defendant"), and alleges upon personal knowledge as to matters concerning Plaintiff and upon information and belief as to all other matters, as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a class action brought under D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23 on behalf of a class of District of Columbia consumers/persons who [________________________________] [describe class and common grievance].

2. Defendant engaged in [________________________________] [describe unlawful conduct], which constitutes unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and/or unconscionable trade practices in violation of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act ("CPPA"), D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq., and caused common and uniform injury to Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class.

3. Plaintiff seeks treble damages or statutory damages of $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(A); punitive damages; restitution and disgorgement; declaratory and injunctive relief; pre- and post-judgment interest; reasonable attorneys' fees and costs; and such further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

4. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-921, which vests the Superior Court of the District of Columbia with general civil jurisdiction over all civil actions, regardless of the amount in controversy.

5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to D.C. Code §§ 13-422 and 13-423 because (check all that apply):

☐ Defendant is domiciled in, organized under the laws of, or maintains its principal place of business in the District of Columbia (D.C. Code § 13-422);
☐ Defendant transacts business in the District of Columbia (D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(1));
☐ Defendant contracted to supply services or goods in the District (D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(2));
☐ Defendant caused tortious injury in the District by an act or omission in the District (D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(3));
☐ Defendant caused tortious injury in the District by an act or omission outside the District and regularly does or solicits business in, engages in any other persistent course of conduct in, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered in the District (D.C. Code § 13-423(a)(4));
☐ Other: [________________________________].

6. Venue is proper in this Court because the Superior Court of the District of Columbia is a court of unified, general civil jurisdiction. The acts and practices challenged in this Complaint occurred in, were directed to, or had a substantial effect within the District of Columbia.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiff

7. Plaintiff [________________________________] is a natural person residing in [________________________________], [State], and at all relevant times was a "consumer" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2).

8. At all relevant times, Plaintiff [________________________________] [describe Plaintiff's connection: purchased Defendant's goods or services in the District, was offered Defendant's goods or services in the District, etc.] in or directed to the District of Columbia.

B. Defendant

9. Defendant [________________________________] is a [corporation/LLC/partnership] organized under the laws of [State], with its principal place of business at [________________________________]. Defendant is a "merchant" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(3) and at all relevant times offered or sold consumer goods and/or services in the District of Columbia.

10. At all relevant times, Defendant [________________________________] [describe Defendant's business activities and how they affected D.C. consumers / the Class].

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Background

11. [________________________________] [describe industry, product, service, or scheme].

12. [________________________________] [describe Defendant's standardized practice or representation].

13. [________________________________] [describe how the practice was uniform across the Class and directed to D.C. consumers].

B. Defendant's Course of Conduct

14. Beginning on or about [__/__/____], and continuing through the present, Defendant uniformly [________________________________].

15. Defendant's conduct was directed at District of Columbia consumers through [________________________________] [marketing channels, form contracts, billing practices, online platforms, etc.].

16. Defendant's [________________________________] [representations/omissions/charges] were materially [false/misleading/unfair/unconscionable] in that [________________________________].

C. Plaintiff's Experience

17. On or about [__/__/____], Plaintiff [________________________________] in the District of Columbia.

18. In connection with that transaction, Defendant [________________________________].

19. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual economic damages in the amount of approximately $[________], plus consequential damages, and is entitled to such further relief as alleged below.

D. Common Harm to Class Members

20. Plaintiff and all members of the proposed Class were harmed by Defendant's same standardized conduct in the same manner, differing only in the amount of monetary loss (and, under § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), each Class member is entitled to a minimum of $1,500 per violation regardless of the magnitude of actual damages).

21. Defendant's records, including [________________________________] [transaction databases, billing records, customer files], permit the identification of Class members and the calculation of damages on a class-wide basis.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

22. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself/herself and all others similarly situated pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23(a) and 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).

A. Capacity to Sue Under the CPPA

23. Plaintiff brings the CPPA claim in the following capacity (check applicable boxes):

☐ As an individual consumer who suffered injury, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(1)(A);
☐ As a non-profit organization on behalf of its members or on behalf of the general public, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(1)(B);
☐ As a public interest organization, on behalf of the interests of a consumer or class of consumers, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(1)(C) (Plaintiff has a sufficient nexus to the interests involved in this action to adequately represent those interests);
☐ As an individual or organization bringing a representative action on behalf of consumers, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(1)(D).

B. Class Definition

24. The proposed Class is defined as:

All persons in the District of Columbia (or who engaged in transactions with Defendant in or directed to the District of Columbia) who [________________________________] during the period from [__/__/____] to the present (the "Class Period").

25. Excluded from the Class are:
    - Defendant, its parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, employees, agents, successors, and assigns;
    - The judicial officers presiding over this action, members of their judicial staff, and members of their immediate families;
    - All persons who timely and properly exclude themselves from the Class; and
    - [________________________________].

26. Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, amend, or refine the Class definition based on information developed in discovery and on the issues identified by the Court at certification.

C. Numerosity – Rule 23(a)(1)

27. The Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff alleges on information and belief that the Class consists of at least [________] persons.

28. The identities of Class members can be ascertained through Defendant's books and records.

D. Commonality – Rule 23(a)(2)

29. There are questions of law and fact common to the Class, including without limitation:

a. Whether Defendant engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

b. Whether Defendant's conduct constitutes an unfair, unlawful, deceptive, or unconscionable trade practice within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3904;

c. Whether Defendant's representations and/or omissions were material;

d. Whether the conduct caused class-wide harm;

e. Whether each Class member is entitled to statutory damages of $1,500 per violation, or treble actual damages, whichever is greater, under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(A);

f. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to punitive damages under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(C);

g. Whether Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to declaratory or injunctive relief under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(D)-(E);

h. The appropriate measure of damages and the method by which damages may be calculated on a class-wide basis.

E. Typicality – Rule 23(a)(3)

30. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the claims of the Class because Plaintiff and each Class member were injured by the same standardized course of conduct by Defendant. Plaintiff and the Class share the same legal theories, and Plaintiff is not subject to any unique defenses.

F. Adequacy – Rule 23(a)(4)

31. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to or in conflict with the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, including D.C. CPPA practice.

G. Maintainable Under Rule 23(b)(3) – Predominance and Superiority

32. Questions of law and fact common to the Class predominate over questions affecting only individual members. The central liability questions turn on Defendant's uniform conduct directed at D.C. consumers.

33. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy because:

a. Although the CPPA's $1,500-per-violation floor provides meaningful individual recovery, many Class members are unaware of their rights and would not pursue individual actions;

b. Class adjudication will conserve judicial resources and avoid the risk of inconsistent adjudications;

c. Defendant has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class; and

d. Management of this case as a class action presents no unusual difficulties.

H. Maintainable Under Rule 23(b)(1) and 23(b)(2) (Alternative)

34. In the alternative, certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(A) because prosecution of separate actions would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications establishing incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant.

35. Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1)(B) because adjudications with respect to individual Class members would, as a practical matter, be dispositive of the interests of other Class members or substantially impair their ability to protect their interests.

36. Certification is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(2) because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, making final injunctive and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate respecting the Class as a whole.

I. Issue Class – Rule 23(c)(4) (Alternative)

37. In the further alternative, the Court should certify particular issues for class treatment under Rule 23(c)(4), including the issues identified in paragraph 29, even if individualized issues preclude certification of any cause of action in its entirety.

J. Rule 23-I Statement

38. Plaintiff will, in compliance with D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23-I(b), move within the time prescribed by the Rule for an order determining whether this action may be maintained as a class action.

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I — Violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq.

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

39. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

40. Defendant is a "merchant" and Plaintiff and the Class are "consumers" engaged in "consumer transactions" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 28-3901(a)(2)-(3) and § 28-3901(a)(7).

41. Defendant committed unfair, unlawful, deceptive, and/or unconscionable trade practices in violation of D.C. Code § 28-3904, including without limitation by:

☐ Representing that goods or services have characteristics, benefits, or qualities that they do not have (§ 28-3904(a));
☐ Misrepresenting a material fact which has a tendency to mislead (§ 28-3904(e));
☐ Failing to state a material fact if such failure tends to mislead (§ 28-3904(f));
☐ Using innuendo or ambiguity as to a material fact which has a tendency to mislead (§ 28-3904(f-1));
☐ Advertising or offering goods or services without intent to sell them as advertised (§ 28-3904(h));
☐ Making or enforcing unconscionable terms or provisions of sales or leases (§ 28-3904(r));
☐ Other: [________________________________].

42. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's unlawful trade practices, Plaintiff and each Class member suffered actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, and in any event are entitled to statutory damages of $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater than treble actual damages, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(A).

43. Plaintiff and the Class are further entitled to punitive damages, reasonable attorneys' fees and costs, declaratory and injunctive relief, and any other relief in law or equity, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(B)-(E).

COUNT II — Common Law Fraud / Fraudulent Misrepresentation

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) [as applicable]

44. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

45. Defendant made material misrepresentations and/or omissions concerning [________________________________].

46. Defendant knew the representations were false or made them with reckless disregard for their truth.

47. Defendant intended that Plaintiff and the Class rely on the representations.

48. Plaintiff and the Class justifiably relied on the representations to their detriment.

49. Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III — Breach of Contract

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) [as applicable]

50. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

51. Plaintiff and each Class member entered into a contract with Defendant on substantially uniform terms.

52. Defendant breached the contract by [________________________________].

53. Plaintiff and the Class performed all obligations under the contract, or any nonperformance was excused.

54. Plaintiff and the Class suffered damages proximately caused by the breach in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT IV — Unjust Enrichment / Restitution

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) (Pleaded in the Alternative)

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

56. Plaintiff and the Class conferred a benefit upon Defendant in the form of [________________________________].

57. Defendant knew of and accepted the benefit.

58. It would be inequitable to permit Defendant to retain the benefit without payment of its value to Plaintiff and the Class.

59. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to restitution and disgorgement of all monies Defendant obtained as a result of its conduct.

COUNT V — Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding paragraphs.

61. A justiciable controversy exists concerning the legality of Defendant's conduct.

62. Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to a judicial declaration that Defendant's conduct is unlawful and to injunctive relief enjoining further unlawful conduct pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(D)-(E) and the Court's equitable powers.

COUNT VI — [Additional state-law claim, e.g., negligent misrepresentation; conversion; breach of fiduciary duty; violation of a D.C. industry-specific consumer protection statute]

(On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class)

63. [________________________________]

64. [________________________________]

65. [________________________________]

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of himself/herself and the Class, respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff and the Class and against Defendant as follows:

A. Certifying this action as a class action under D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23(a) and 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3), or in the alternative certifying issue classes under 23(c)(4); appointing Plaintiff as Class Representative; and appointing the undersigned as Class Counsel under Rule 23(g);

B. Awarding compensatory damages in an amount to be proven at trial;

C. Awarding statutory damages of $1,500 per violation, or treble actual damages, whichever is greater, pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(A);

D. Awarding punitive damages pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(C) and D.C. common law;

E. Awarding restitution and disgorgement of all monies Defendant obtained through the unlawful conduct;

F. Granting a declaratory judgment that Defendant's conduct violates D.C. law;

G. Granting permanent injunctive relief restraining Defendant from continuing the unlawful conduct pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(D)-(E);

H. Awarding pre-judgment and post-judgment interest at the maximum rate allowed by law;

I. Awarding reasonable attorneys' fees, expert fees, expenses, and costs pursuant to D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(B) and any other applicable authority; and

J. Granting such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff, on behalf of himself/herself and the Class, hereby demands a trial by jury on all issues so triable, pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 38.

DATED: [__/__/____]

Respectfully submitted,

By: [________________________________]
[Attorney Name] (D.C. Bar No. [________])
[Firm Name]
[Address]
[Washington, D.C. ZIP]
Telephone: [________________________________]
Facsimile: [________________________________]
Email: [________________________________]

Counsel for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SERVICE

To the Clerk: Please issue summons for service of the foregoing Complaint upon Defendant pursuant to D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 4 at the address listed in the caption above, or upon Defendant's registered agent at:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

1. CPPA Damage Structure — Treble OR $1,500, Whichever Greater. Under D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(A), the prevailing consumer recovers "treble damages, or $1,500 per violation, whichever is greater, payable to the consumer." This is one of the most powerful UDAP remedies in the country. In a small-dollar consumer class action, the $1,500-per-violation floor often drives aggregate damages far above the treble-actual-damages figure. Plaintiff's counsel should plead the floor expressly and address how "violation" is counted (per transaction? per misrepresentation? per consumer?). See, e.g., Floyd v. Bank of America Corp., 70 A.3d 246 (D.C. 2013) (discussing CPPA damages mechanics).

2. Broad Standing — § 28-3905(k)(1). D.C. permits suit by (A) injured consumers; (B) non-profit organizations on behalf of their members or the general public; (C) public-interest organizations testing or evaluating goods or services; and (D) any individual or organization on behalf of similarly situated consumers (the so-called "representative action" provision). This breadth is unusual and is a key strategic feature of D.C. CPPA practice.

3. CPPA and Class Actions. Class actions under the CPPA are expressly permitted. Save Immaculata/Dunblane, Inc. v. Immaculata Preparatory School, Inc., 514 A.2d 1152 (D.C. 1986). However, the CPPA does NOT apply to suits against nonprofit corporations certified under D.C. Code § 29-533. Schiff v. AARP, 697 A.2d 1193 (D.C. 1997).

4. Punitive Damages. Punitive damages are available under the CPPA. D.C. Code § 28-3905(k)(2)(C). D.C. follows the federal "clear and convincing" evidence standard for punitive damages and requires a showing of malice or reckless indifference.

5. Rule 23-I Class-Action Determination Procedure. D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23-I(b) requires the plaintiff to move for a determination of class-action status within 90 days after service of the complaint (or such later time as the Court permits). Calendar this deadline immediately.

6. Jurisdiction vs. Venue. Unlike most state systems, D.C. has a single, unified trial court (D.C. Superior Court). There is no separate venue analysis for Superior Court civil filings; personal jurisdiction under D.C. Code §§ 13-422 (enduring relationships) and 13-423 (long-arm) is the governing analysis.

7. Federal Removal Risk. Defendants frequently remove D.C. CPPA class actions to the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under CAFA, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d). Plaintiff's counsel should consider amount-in-controversy strategy (the $5 million CAFA threshold) and the local-controversy and home-state exceptions (28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(4)).

8. Pre-suit Notice. Unlike many state UDAP statutes, the D.C. CPPA does NOT require a pre-suit demand letter for the private right of action under § 28-3905(k). Counsel may still consider sending one as a strategic matter, but it is not a statutory prerequisite.

VERIFICATION (OPTIONAL — required only where specifically authorized by statute or rule)

I, [________________________________], am the Plaintiff in the above-captioned action. I have read the foregoing Class Action Complaint and know the contents thereof. The same is true of my own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated upon information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the District of Columbia that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed on [__/__/____] at [________________________________].

[________________________________]
Plaintiff Signature

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that on [__/__/____] a true and correct copy of the foregoing CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT was filed and served via:

☐ Court electronic filing system (CaseFileXpress / D.C. Courts eFiling)
☐ Certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested
☐ Personal service through process server
☐ Service on registered agent
☐ Hand delivery

upon all parties of record and/or upon the following:

[________________________________]
[________________________________]
[________________________________]

[________________________________]
Signature

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23 (Class Actions): https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-superior-court/Civil%20Rule%2023.%20Class%20Actions.pdf
• D.C. Sup. Ct. Civ. R. 23-I (Class Action Procedure): https://www.dccourts.gov/sites/default/files/rules-superior-court/Civil%20Rule%2023-I.%20Class%20Actions%20Procedure%20for%20Determining%20Whether%20Action%20May%20Be%20Maintained%20as%20Class%20Action_%20Additional%20Notice%20Requirements.pdf
• D.C. Code § 28-3905 (CPPA Private Right of Action): https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/28-3905
• D.C. Code § 13-422 (Personal Jurisdiction): https://code.dccouncil.gov/us/dc/council/code/sections/13-422
• Save Immaculata/Dunblane, Inc. v. Immaculata Preparatory School, Inc., 514 A.2d 1152 (D.C. 1986)
• Stutsman v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, 546 A.2d 367 (D.C. 1988)
• Schiff v. AARP, 697 A.2d 1193 (D.C. 1997)
• Ford v. ChartOne, Inc., 908 A.2d 72 (D.C. 2006)

This template is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. D.C. class action complaints require specialized expertise and should be prepared with the assistance of experienced D.C. class action counsel.