1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

JEFFERSON-11TH STREET, LLC,

Plaintiff,

v. Civil Action No. 1:19-cv-1416 (CJN)

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Plaintiff Jefferson-11th Street, LLC owns an apartment building in Washington’s 

Columbia Heights neighborhood. Compl. ¶ 10, ECF No. 1. The building is outdated and in need 

of repair, though it has remained partially occupied in recent years. Id. ¶¶ 10, 15, 21–25. After 

Jefferson engaged in a protracted battle with tenants over plans to improve the property and raise

rents, the District of Columbia’s Attorney General intervened and brought a civil suit against 

Jefferson in D.C. Superior Court in 2017. Id. ¶ 110. As part of that proceeding, the Superior 

Court placed the property in receivership and appointed a receiver to oversee the building’s 

rehabilitation under a court-approved plan. Id. ¶¶ 129–40.

Jefferson subsequently brought this federal lawsuit, alleging that the District’s suit and 

the ensuing receivership constitute an uncompensated taking of property under the Fifth 

Amendment, id. ¶¶ 153–63, or, in the alternative, a deprivation of property without due process 

of law, id. ¶¶ 163–74.1

 The Complaint also alleges a common law tortious interference with 

 1 In addition to the District of Columbia, the Complaint names the receiver, Benjamin Gilmore, 

as a Defendant in Counts I and II. Id. ¶¶ 153–74.
2

business expectancy claim against Defendants 2724 11th St. NW Tenants’ Association, Inc. 

(“Tenants”) and the Latino Economic Development Corporation of Washington, D.C. (“LEDC”), 

an organization allegedly assisting the Tenants in their legal battle. 

Both sets of Defendants moved to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil 

Procedure 12(b)(6). See generally Defs. The District of Columbia and Benjamin Gilmore’s Mot. 

to Dismiss (“D.C. Mot.”), ECF No. 10; Defs. 2724 11th St. NW Tenants’ Ass’n, Inc. and Latino 

Econ. Dev. Corp. of Wash., D.C.’s Mot. to Dismiss (“Tenants’ Mot.”), ECF No 11. The Court 

agrees with the District that the ongoing proceedings in Superior Court “are judicial in nature 

and implicate important District interests; [that] those proceedings afford [Jefferson] an adequate 

opportunity to litigate its federal claims; and [that] there are no extraordinary circumstances 

warranting equitable relief.” JMM Corp. v. District of Columbia, 378 F.3d 1117, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 

2004). The Court therefore grants the District’s Motion to Dismiss. Because that action 

“dismisse[s] all claims over which [the Court] has original jurisdiction,” the Court declines to 

exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Count III of the Complaint and grants the Tenants’ 

Motion to Dismiss. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).

I. Background

2724 11th Street NW is a century-old, two-story apartment building containing 26 

residential apartments. Compl. ¶ 10. Plaintiff acquired the building in 2009 and owns the 

property outright. Id. ¶¶ 10–11. The units are rent-controlled and have not been updated in 

some time, so the tenants’ rent is significantly below the market rate in the neighborhood. Id.

¶¶ 16–19. Because of the low rents and the moderate level of occupancy, the operation is not 

profitable. Id. ¶ 19. The building “lacks central air conditioning[] and requires major structural 

repairs . . . and major improvements to or replacement of all systems.” Id. ¶ 23. It also needs 
3

“substantial interior repairs and rehabilitation, including repair and replacement of many interior 

floors, walls, and ceilings, some of which are known to cover asbestos and lead paint.” Id. ¶ 24.

Beginning in 2012, Jefferson began the first of its several attempts to overhaul the 

building. Id. ¶ 26. It tried to secure approval from a sufficient number of tenants to institute a 

voluntary rehabilitation plan that would have completely renovated the property and raised rents 

accordingly. Id. ¶¶ 27–28. The tenants did not agree. Id. ¶ 29. Jefferson then turned to the 

administrative process, filing a hardship petition with the District government to obtain 

permission to upgrade the property and raise rents unilaterally. Id. ¶¶ 32–35. Individual tenants, 

allegedly aided by LEDC, filed objections to the hardship petition. Id. ¶ 39. The newly 

incorporated Tenants Association then filed its own tenants’ petition, seeking the government’s 

assistance in remediating existing D.C. Housing Code violations. Id. ¶¶ 43–46. Several rounds 

of administrative petitions, hearings, and orders followed, along with multiple property 

inspections that found dozens of code violations in each instance. Id. ¶¶ 46–97. Jefferson 

alleges that it resolved most of the violations at substantial cost. Id. One inspection turned up 

evidence of mold in several units, prompting individual tenants to file a lawsuit in Superior Court 

to force Jefferson to alleviate the mold problem. Id. ¶¶ 98–102, 106–109.

On April 24, 2017, the District’s Attorney General filed a three-count suit against 

Jefferson in D.C. Superior Court, seeking the appointment of a receiver to take control of the 

property and renovate it under the Tenant Receivership Act, D.C. Code. §§ 42-3651.01–.08; 

injunctive relief under the same statute, id.; and money damages for alleged unfair trade practices 

in violation of the District’s Consumer Protection Procedures Act, id. §§ 28-3901–13. Compl. 

¶¶ 110–12. Parallel administrative proceedings continued. Id. ¶¶ 114–21. Jefferson resolved 

many of the outstanding code violations and proposed to the Court a plan to abate the remainder, 
4

but the District continued to conduct new inspections and to identify even more problems. Id.

¶¶ 122–28. The Superior Court therefore rejected Jefferson’s proposal and granted the District’s 

petition to appoint Defendant Benjamin Gilmore as receiver with “sole and plenary authority to 

collect rents, operate the Property in accordance with the powers conferred by the [Tenant 

Receivership Act], and abate not merely the housing code violations alleged in the [District’s] 

complaint, but all violations that currently exist or may exist in the future at the Property while 

the [receivership] is in effect.” Id. ¶¶ 128–30 (internal quotation omitted).

Thereafter, Gilmore submitted two potential abatement plans for the Court’s review. Id.

¶ 131. The Court adopted the more extensive of the two, requiring Jefferson to contribute over 

$2 million toward the property’s complete overhaul, as well as more than $260,000 to pay for the 

tenants to relocate temporarily during construction. Id. ¶¶ 139–43. The Superior Court declined 

to amend certain aspects of the plan at Jefferson’s request, though it permitted Jefferson to 

negotiate with Gilmore to fund desired projects that exceeded the planned upgrades so as to 

accomplish all new work at the same time. Id. ¶¶ 144–46. As work began, Gilmore revised his 

cost estimate upwards. Id. ¶¶ 147–49. He also declined to amend his plan at Jefferson’s request, 

even though Jefferson pointed out that some of the planned work (such as replacing the 

building’s boiler rather than installing a central climate control system) would preclude future 

upgrades and would require the new work to be torn out and started from scratch. Id. ¶¶ 150–51.

Jefferson then turned to the federal courts for assistance. On May 15, 2019, it filed this 

lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, seeking a declaration that the District’s litigation and the 

Superior Court’s actions constitute an impermissible taking of private property under the 

Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, id. at 31, or, in the alternative, money damages for a 

deprivation of private property without due process, id. at 32. The Complaint also seeks 
5

damages from the Tenants’ Association and LEDC for allegedly scheming to thwart Jefferson’s 

rehabilitation plans and thereby tortiously interfering with its business expectations. Id.

Both sets of Defendants move to dismiss. See generally D.C. Mot.; Tenants’ Mot. The 

District first argues that the Court should abstain from this dispute under Younger v. Harris, 401 

U.S. 37, 41 (1971). See D.C. Mot. at 6–8. It also argues that Defendant Gilmore is immune 

from suit as the Superior Court’s agent, id. at 8–9, and that the Complaint fails to state a takings 

claim, id. at 9–16. The Tenants argue that the Noerr-Pennington Doctrine bars any suit against 

them for legitimately exercising their First Amendment rights, Tenants’ Mot. at 7–11, and 

alternatively that the Complaint fails to state a claim for tortious interference with business 

expectancy, id. at 11–16. Because the Court resolves the District’s Motion on the question of 

Younger abstention, it does not reach any other arguments.

II. Legal Standard

“A pleading that states a claim for relief must contain . . . a short and plain statement of 

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). “When 

evaluating a motion to dismiss [under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)], the Court must 

treat the complaint’s factual allegations as true and afford the plaintiff the benefit of all 

inferences that can be derived from the facts alleged.” Atlas Brew Works, LLC v. Barr, 391 F. 

Supp. 3d 6, 11 (D.D.C. 2019) (internal quotations and citations omitted). Although the Court 

accepts all well pleaded facts in the Complaint as true, “[f]actual allegations must be enough to 

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 

(2007). “While a complaint . . . does not need detailed factual allegations, a plaintiff’s obligation 

to provide the grounds of [its] entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, 

and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 554–55 
6

(internal quotations and citations omitted). The claim to relief must be “plausible on its face,” 

enough to “nudge[ the] claims across the line from conceivable to plausible.” Id. at 570.

III. Analysis

The Complaint alleges that the District of Columbia, acting through the Attorney 

General, the Superior Court, and the receiver, Gilmore, has effected a taking of

(a) the reasonable expectancy of the excess in market value the 

Property would have achieved under [Jefferson’s Substantial 

Rehabilitation] Plan over the market value the Property will have on 

the completion of the Receiver’s “Scenario 2” abatement work; 

(b) the reasonable expectancy of the increased rent revenues the 

Property would have achieved under the Housing Act under a 

substantial rehabilitation . . . ; 

(c) the lion’s share of [Jefferson’s] equity in the Property; 

(d) the portion of the $2,072,738 that [Jefferson] has been required 

to pay into the receivership thus far but that [Jefferson] will not 

recover in the form of improved Property value at the end of the 

receivership; and 

(e) the earning power of $2,072,738 during the period from payment 

of funds into the receivership until the receivership is terminated.

Compl. ¶ 158. Jefferson alleges that “[t]he District has thereby deprived [it] of all economically 

beneficial use of the Property and the Protected Property Interests and has prevented the Property 

from ever providing a reasonable rate of return.” Id. ¶ 159. The District responds that these 

same issues are currently being litigated in the Superior Court, undercutting the necessity of 

raising them in parallel proceedings here. See D.C. Mot. at 6–8.

Although the Younger doctrine originally applied only to ongoing criminal prosecutions 

in state court, 401 U.S. at 48–54, the Supreme Court later extended the doctrine to “pending civil 

court proceedings in which important state interests are involved.” JMM Corp., 378 F.3d at 

1126 (citing Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U.S. 592, 604 (1975)). “[E]xcept in extraordinary 
7

circumstances, a federal court should not enjoin a pending state proceeding (including an 

administrative proceeding) that is judicial in nature and involves important state interests.” Id. at

1120 (citing Younger, 401 U.S. at 41) (other citations omitted). Younger applies to the District 

of Columbia even if the federalism concerns underlying the doctrine are absent here. Id. at 1125. 

In JMM Corp., the District initiated administrative proceedings against an unlicensed 

adult video store. Id. at 1119. The store sued to enjoin the enforcement action in federal court, 

and then the District sued the store in Superior Court to enforce its order. Id. at 1120. The 

district court dismissed the federal suit on the basis of Younger abstention and the D.C. Circuit 

affirmed (deciding for the first time that the doctrine applies in the District of Columbia). Id. at 

1120, 1128. In doing so, the Court of Appeals recognized that “the enforcement of zoning 

regulations . . . constitutes an important state interest.” 378 F.3d at 1126. So long as the plaintiff 

has “‘a full and fair opportunity to litigate’ its constitutional claims” in Superior Court, 

abstention is appropriate. Id. at 1127 (quoting Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n v. Dayton Christian 

Schs., Inc., 477 U.S. 619, 627 (1986)). Two exceptions to the doctrine are when “the pending 

[District] action was brought in bad faith or for the purpose of harassing” the plaintiff or “where 

a [District] statute is flagrantly and patently unconstitutional.” Id. (internal quotations omitted).

Here, the District argues that its dispute with Jefferson is ongoing in Superior Court, that 

it relates to important District interests (health and safety regulation of housing), that Jefferson 

has an adequate forum in which to raise its constitutional concerns (Superior Court and the D.C.

Court of Appeals), and that there is no allegation that the District brought the suit in bad faith. 

D.C. Mot. at 6–8. To be sure, the Complaint alleges that the Tenants Association and LEDC 

have acted in bad faith by “induc[ing] the [Attorney General] to commence and prosecute the 
8

District’s Receivership Case in furtherance of [their] Scheme [to gain control of the property],” 

but the Complaint does not allege bad faith on the District’s part. Compl. ¶ 111.

Jefferson responds by noting that abstention is disfavored and that “federal courts lack 

the authority to abstain from the exercise of jurisdiction that has been conferred.” See Pl.’s 

Mem. of P. & A. in Opp’n to Mot. to Dismiss of Defs. D.C. & Benjamin Gilmore (“Pl.’s D.C. 

Opp’n”) at 5, ECF No. 14 (quoting New Orleans Pub. Serv., Inc. v. Council of the City of New 

Orleans (“NOPSI”), 491 U.S. 350, 358 (1989)). It is true that, “[i]n the main, federal courts are 

obliged to decide cases within the scope of federal jurisdiction” and therefore “[a]bstention is not 

in order simply because a pending [Superior Court] proceeding involves the same subject 

matter.” Sprint Commc’ns, Inc. v. Jacobs, 571 U.S. 69, 72 (2013) (citing NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 

373). “[F]ederal courts ordinarily should entertain and resolve on the merits an action within the 

scope of a jurisdictional grant, and should not ‘refus[e] to decide a case in deference to the 

States.’” Id. at 73 (quoting NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368 (alteration in original)).

But there are certain “exceptional” circumstances in which Younger does apply: (1) 

“ongoing state criminal prosecutions;” (2) “certain civil enforcement proceedings” that are “akin 

to a criminal prosecution” and “are characteristically initiated to sanction the federal plaintiff . . . 

for some wrongful act;” or (3) “pending civil proceedings involving certain orders uniquely in 

furtherance of the state courts’ ability to perform their judicial function.” Pl.’s D.C. Opp’n at 6 

(quoting Sprint, 571 U.S. at 78–79 (citing NOPSI, 491 U.S. at 368) (internal quotations 

omitted)). Both sides agree that there is no ongoing criminal prosecution, see Pl.’s D.C. Opp’n 

at 6; Defs. D.C. & Benjamin Gilmore’s Reply to Pl.’s Opp’n to Defs.’ Mot. to Dismiss (“D.C. 

Reply”) at 3, ECF No. 18, so the question is whether the District’s suit against Jefferson is either 

a “civil enforcement proceeding . . . akin to a criminal prosecution” or a “pending civil 
9

proceeding[] involving certain orders uniquely in furtherance of the [Superior Court’s] ability to 

perform [its] judicial function.” Sprint, 571 U.S. at 79. 

The Sprint Court listed several examples of the former category: “state-initiated 

disciplinary proceedings against [a] lawyer for violation of state ethics rules,” Middlesex Cty. 

Ethics Comm. v. Garden State Bar Ass’n, 457 U.S. 423 (1982); “state-initiated administrative 

proceedings to enforce state civil rights laws,” Ohio Civil Rights Comm’n, 477 U.S. 619; a 

“state-initiated proceeding to gain custody of children allegedly abused by their parents,” Moore 

v. Sims, 442 U.S. 415 (1979); a “civil proceeding brought by the State in its sovereign capacity to 

recover welfare payments defendants had allegedly obtained by fraud,” Trainor v. Hernandez, 

431 U.S. 434 (1977) (internal quotation omitted); and a “state-initiated proceeding to enforce 

obscenity laws,” Huffman, 420 U.S. at 598. 571 U.S. at 79. These cases usually involve 

investigations “culminating in the filing of a formal complaint or charges.” Id. at 79–80. Some 

of those scenarios are analogous to the situation here—if federal courts should not disturb a 

state’s civil enforcement action to remove children from their parents’ custody temporarily for 

the sake of the children’s welfare, it would seem reasonable for courts to give states some leeway 

to remove a property owner’s control over its tenants’ homes temporarily for the tenants’ 

welfare. See also Worldwide Moving & Storage, Inc. v. District of Columbia, 445 F.3d 422, 423, 

426 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (abstaining from District’s civil enforcement action to stop moving 

company from “misleading customers in violation of the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures 

Act”).

Jefferson tries to distinguish those cases in four ways. First, it points to the type of relief 

it seeks in this suit. See D.C. Opp’n at 7. Rather than asking for an injunction to prevent 

Gilmore from exercising control over the property, Jefferson merely seeks a judicial declaration 
10

that a taking (or a due process deprivation) has occurred and that Jefferson is entitled to just 

compensation. Id. But Jefferson cites no cases for the proposition that a federal court’s 

declaration that a taking has occurred would not interfere with the District’s enforcement 

proceeding. But see Herrera v. City of Palmdale, 918 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2019) (O’Scannlain, 

J.) (upholding stay of § 1983 suit for damages alleging, among other claims, a taking of a motel 

in a state-initiated nuisance suit because even a declaratory judgment or a damages remedy 

would have preclusive effect on parallel state enforcement proceeding). And it is inconceivable 

that the Superior Court would permit the receivership to remain in place in the face of a federal 

judicial declaration that the entire process violates the Constitution, Jefferson’s assurances to the 

contrary notwithstanding. See D.C. Opp’n at 8–9; Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U.S. 66, 72 (1971) 

(“[O]rdinarily a declaratory judgment will result in precisely the same interference with and 

disruption of state proceedings that the longstanding policy limiting injunctions was designed to 

avoid.”). That is especially true when the federal plaintiff alleges that the Superior Court’s 

actions themselves form part of the unconstitutional actions. See Compl. ¶ 168 (“The District’s 

deprivation of [Jefferson’s] property resulted from a municipal policy, expressed in rulings of the 

DC Superior Court in the District’s Receivership Case.” (emphasis added)).

Jefferson also fails to explain how the Court would determine the appropriate level of 

compensation given that work remains ongoing and costs are subject to change. That fact further 

supports the proposition that Jefferson should raise its Fifth Amendment claims either in the 

Superior Court (which is monitoring the progress and cost of renovations) or after the 

receivership case ends (when there is no chance of federal interference with important District 

interests).
11

Second, Jefferson tries to distinguish receivership proceedings from other enforcement 

actions. See D.C. Opp’n at 10–12. Receivership, it argues, is remedial rather than punitive in 

nature. See id. at 10–11. It’s fast tracked, and the only decision a court makes is whether a mere 

preponderance of the evidence suggests that the landlord can no longer care for the property. See 

id. at 11. Relying on Family Division Trial Lawyers, Jefferson compares the Superior Court 

proceedings to child neglect enforcement actions, which are also limited in scope and remedial in 

nature. See id. (citing Family Div. Trial Lawyers of Super. Ct.-D.C., Inc. v. Moultrie, 725 F.2d 

695 (D.C. Cir. 1984)). 

In Family Division, a group of attorneys brought a constitutional challenge to the 

Superior Court’s practice of forcing lawyers to represent certain clients without compensation. 

725 F.2d at 697. The attorneys regularly requested appointments to represent juveniles in 

delinquency proceedings; that work was typically paid. Id. at 698–99. But, as a condition of 

eligibility for juvenile delinquency work, the attorneys had to volunteer for uncompensated 

appointments to represent indigent parents in child-neglect proceedings in the Superior Court’s 

Family Division. Id. The lawyers moved for injunctive relief in the Superior Court, but their 

motion was denied. Id. at 699. They appealed to the D.C. Court of Appeals but later withdrew 

the appeals because they did not have enough money to cover their costs. Id. at 700. While their 

appeals were pending, the group filed a federal takings suit, seeking compensation for their 

previous work and injunctive relief to stop the practice going forward. Id.

The D.C. Circuit ultimately held that abstention under Younger was inappropriate in part 

because the D.C. Superior Court proceedings were not enforcement proceedings against the 

federal plaintiffs. Id. at 700–04. The legal proceedings at issue targeted neglectful parents—the 

lawyers merely assisted the Superior Court in the conduct of those proceedings. Id. at 700–04. 
12

Family Division was a constitutional challenge to a general administrative practice of the 

Superior Court; there was no pending enforcement proceeding for the federal court to disrupt. 

Id. at 702–03; see also id. at 711 n.2 (Starr, J., dissenting) (“Unlike Younger v. Harris, . . . and its 

civil progeny, in this case there was no pending proceeding in the District of Columbia courts. 

Moreover, as the majority correctly observes, any remedial order would not, as in O'Shea v. 

Littleton, 414 U.S. 488 (1974), impinge upon the day-to-day operations of the superior court.”). 

Here, of course, the District’s receivership case directly targets Jefferson in an effort to enforce 

the D.C. Housing Code. And the content of that proceeding is identical to the claims Jefferson 

brings here. Jefferson’s citation to Family Division is unavailing.

For its part, the District notes that the Attorney General filed his complaint in the 

Superior Court’s Civil Division (not in some specialized, limited forum) and, in addition to its 

petition to place the property in receivership, alleged a violation of the D.C. Consumer 

Protection Procedures Act, bringing the possibility of punitive sanctions to bear against 

Jefferson. D.C. Reply at 5–6; see also id. Ex. 1, ECF No. 18-1; Carroll v. City of Mt. Clemens, 

139 F.3d 1072, 1074–75 (6th Cir. 1998) (holding that Younger abstention was appropriate in 

municipal enforcement action to enforce housing code violations against landlord when landlord 

mounted constitutional challenge to the violated ordinance). Jefferson has not provided (either in 

its papers or at a hearing on the Motions) specific facets of the Superior Court case that 

distinguish it from a typical judicial proceeding. 

Third (and relatedly), Jefferson argues that it has had no opportunity to raise its 

constitutional claims in Superior Court because of the expedited and limited nature of the 

proceedings. See D.C. Opp’n at 12–15. It correctly notes that, in order for Younger abstention to 

be appropriate, the plaintiff must “have a full and fair opportunity to litigate its constitutional 
13

claims in [the Superior Court] proceedings.” JMM Corp., 378 F.3d at 1127 (citing Ohio Civil 

Rights Comm’n, 477 U.S. at 627). “[T]he burden on this point rests on [Jefferson] to show ‘that 

[District] procedural law barred presentation of [its] claims.’” Pennzoil Co. v. Texaco, Inc., 481 

U.S. 1, 14 (1987) (quoting Moore, 442 U.S. at 432). Jefferson’s brief details the special 

procedures in place to handle receivership petitions, though it ignores the Superior Court’s 

additional duty to adjudicate the Attorney General’s claim under the Consumer Protection 

Procedures Act. See D.C. Opp’n at 13.

But Jefferson acknowledges that it has made no effort to raise the due process and takings 

arguments in Superior Court and that the primary obstacle to litigating constitutional challenges 

to the receivership is that “the judge wouldn’t be interested in hearing it.” While that may be 

true (and may be grounds for an appeal), it’s a far cry from a structural defect in the forum itself

that would preclude Younger abstention.2

 In Hoai v. Sun Refining and Marketing, Inc., 866 F.2d 

1515, 1519–20 (D.C. Cir. 1989), the D.C. Circuit recognized that where a Superior Court judge 

attempts to limit the scope of the proceedings before him to issues of District law and separate 

out the federal concerns, abstention is likely not appropriate. But in that instance, the federal 

lawsuit preceded the Superior Court action, so the Superior Court judge was trying to limit the 

extent to which he would have been duplicating issues already under litigation in federal court. 

 2 Jefferson has also suggested that it may have lost its chance to bring a potentially compulsory 

counterclaim against the District in Superior Court, or alternatively that the statute of limitations 

may preclude it from bringing such a claim now. Aside from the fact that the receivership is 

ongoing and would theoretically constitute a continuing Fifth Amendment violation that would 

cure any statute-of-limitations concerns, a plaintiff’s failure to bring timely claims in Superior 

Court does not somehow enable it to bring (or to attempt to bring) the same claims in another 

court. Cf. Pumpelly v. Cook, 106 F.R.D. 238 (D.D.C. 1985) (dismissing Complaint that should 

have been brought as a compulsory counterclaim in earlier litigation between the same Parties).
14

Id. That situation does not apply here, where Jefferson had an opportunity to try to raise these 

issues in Superior Court but opted to file a new federal lawsuit instead.

Jefferson’s citations to other cases in which federal courts found that abstention was 

inappropriate because of insufficient opportunity to raise constitutional claims are also 

unavailing, as those cases either involved specialized forums that limited the scope of litigation, 

see, e.g., LaShawn A. by Moore v. Kelly, 990 F.2d 1319, 1323 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (“Proceedings in 

the Family Division are . . . questionable vehicle[s] for adjudicating the claims raised in the 

present case”), or situations in which the Superior Court’s Civil Division was reviewing the 

decisions of administrative bodies and was therefore limited in its standard of review and ability 

to consider claims not raised in administrative adjudications, see, e.g., Bridges v. Kelly, 84 F.3d 

470, 477 (D.C. Cir. 1996) (“Nor have we found anything suggesting that, on appeal from the 

[Office of Employee Appeals], the D.C. Superior Court or Court of Appeals could entertain 

requests for relief that were not cognizable before the [Office of Employee Appeals].”). None of 

that appears to be the case here, and “when a litigant has not attempted to present [its] federal 

claims in related [District]-court proceedings, a federal court should assume that [District] 

procedures will afford an adequate remedy, in the absence of unambiguous authority to the 

contrary.” Pennzoil, 481 U.S. at 15.

Finally, Jefferson argues that even if the Attorney General did not bring the enforcement 

action in bad faith, the Tenants’ Association and LEDC allegedly acted in bad faith to cause the 

District to bring the action by filing serial complaints as part of a conspiracy to take the property 

for themselves. See D.C. Opp’n at 15–16. Jefferson correctly notes that abstention is 

inappropriate when there is a “showing of bad faith, harassment, or some other extraordinary 

circumstances.” Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 435. But Jefferson cites no legal authority for the 
15 

proposition that federal courts may impute the motivations of third parties to the District of 

Columbia’s official actions, initiated by the District in its governmental capacity. See Sprint, 

571 U.S. at 80. Absent an allegation that the District itself acted in bad faith, there is no 

“extraordinary circumstance[]” warranting federal intervention in the Superior Court case. 

Middlesex Cty., 457 U.S. at 435. 

IV. Conclusion 

The District has demonstrated that the Superior Court’s receivership case is an “ongoing 

[District] proceeding[] that is judicial in nature,” that it “implicate[s] important [District] 

interests,” and that it “afford[s] an adequate opportunity in which to raise the federal claims” that 

Jefferson has raised in this Court. Hoai, 866 F.2d at 1518. The Court therefore finds that it is 

appropriate to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction under Younger. 401 U.S. at 41. Jefferson 

may attempt to raise its constitutional claims in the Superior Court or, once that case has 

concluded, resurrect those claims in federal court. The Court declines to exercise supplemental 

jurisdiction over Jefferson’s tort claim against the Tenants’ Association and LEDC. 

For the foregoing reasons, the District of Columbia’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. 

The Tenants’ Association and LEDC’s Motion to Dismiss is also GRANTED. All counts in the 

Complaint are DISMISSED without prejudice. An Order will be entered contemporaneously 

with this Memorandum Opinion. 

DATE: April 9, 2020 

CARL J. NICHOLS

United States District Judge