Opinion ID: 2354195
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The CPPA Claim

Text: The Tenants Association is also precluded from seeking relief under the CPPA. Although the CPPA is, to say the least, an ambitious piece of legislation, with broad remedial purposes, DeBerry v. First Gov't Mortgage & Investors Corp., 743 A.2d 699, 700 (D.C.1999) (internal citation and quotations omitted), it is not clear from its plain language that the statutory scheme, designed to protect consumers, applies to the situation presented here. On the one hand, the definition of goods and services does extend to real estate transactions. D.C.Code § 28-3901(a)(7). On the other hand, the CPPA expressly forbids the Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (the principal consumer protection agency of the District of Columbia government, see D.C.Code § 28-3902(a)) to apply the CPPA's administrative remedies to landlord-tenant relations. See D.C.Code § 28-3903(c)(2)(A). In Childs v. Purll, 882 A.2d 227 (D.C. 2005), we recognized that § 28-3905(k)(1) no longer explicitly links the scope of private civil actions to the jurisdiction of the [DCRA]. Id. at 238. However, we did not need to decide whether the Council intended . . . to expand the private right of action to cover landlord-tenant relations. Id. In this case we likewise find it unnecessary to determine whether a private civil action under the CPPA may ever extend to landlord-tenant relations. Here the Tenants Association explicitly bases its CPPA claim on the alleged violation of the Sale Act. Its complaint characterizes the alleged violations of the Sale Act as unlawful trade practices prohibited by the CPPA. In its briefs the Tenants Association variously states that violation of the Sale Act also gives rise to remedies under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act and that violations of the Sale Act's disclosure obligations are unlawful trade practices actionable under the CPPA. It also identifies the unfair trade practices as the failure to make the disclosures and offers of sale required by the Sale Act. Because we have already held that the Sale Act does not apply to this transaction, appellant's CPPA claim cannot survive. [15] Accordingly, we reverse the trial court's ruling that the 95/5 transaction constituted a sale and affirm, on other grounds, its grant of summary judgment to the defendants on the Tenants Association's claim under the CPPA. The judgment in favor of the defendants is Affirmed.