Opinion ID: 2276728
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The motions judge's decision.

Text: On April 10, 1998, the motions judge dismissed without prejudice all claims against the District. The judge held that the CAB was vested with primary jurisdiction over Urban Shelters' claims against the District, and that the court was without authority to consider these claims until the CAB had acted upon them. The employees contended that the CAB was without jurisdiction over their complaint because Urban Shelters was working under an expired contract, because the CAB's jurisdiction was confined to disputes between the District and its contractors, and because, according to the employees, an oral contract with District officials did not implicate the Procurement Practices Act (PPA), D.C.Code §§ 1-1181.1 et seq. (1999) or the jurisdiction of the CAB. The motions judge rejected all of these contentions. The judge held that Urban Shelters must have its claim reviewed by the CAB before it may properly resort to the court system. In the judge's view, it is not for this court to determine the breadth of CAB jurisdiction over this matter; that decision rests with the CAB. Having ruled on jurisdictional grounds without reaching the merits, the judge dismissed the District from the case without prejudice. [8] The employees' suit then proceeded to trial against the remaining defendants.