Opinion ID: 3165518
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: UCI and Plaintiffs’ Allegations4

Text: In a broad sense, the current dispute stems from the founding by Reverend Moon of the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (the “Unification Church”), in Seoul, South Korea, in 1954. In 1971, Reverend Moon moved from South Korea to the United States to expand the Unification Church’s 4 We here set forth the facts as alleged in the complaint. The defendants filed a counterclaim with a markedly different view of events. This counterclaim was eventually dismissed, creating finality for the instant appeals. 4 activities around the globe. Two years later, in 1975, Reverend Moon directed his close associate, Dr. Bo Hi Pak, to “open a bank account with Diplomat National Bank in the District of Columbia in the name of Unification Church International.” The first sum deposited in the account came from an account in Reverend Moon’s name, and additional funds were contributed by various other Unification Church entities. Reverend Moon “directed Dr. Pak to hold the funds in the [UCI] bank account in trust solely for the benefit and support of the Unification Church and its related activities.” As a key assertion, plaintiffs argue that Reverend Moon’s statements and actions demonstrate the intent to create an oral, charitable trust with Dr. Pak serving as the trust’s first trustee (“UCI Trust”). By 1977, approximately $7,000,000 had been donated and was held in the UCI bank account. Reverend Moon then directed Dr. Pak to establish a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation to implement the UCI Trust and carry out its purpose. Thus, UCI came into being in that year. Dr. Pak changed the UCI Trust’s bank account to reflect that the donated funds would be held by UCI, as opposed to the trust itself. Reverend Moon intended for this corporation to “implement the purposes of the trust and for the Directors of the Corporation to serve as trustees and ensure that the Corporation and its assets would be administered for the benefit of the Unification Church.” 5 The original February 1977 Articles of Incorporation are alleged to “reflect[] the purposes” of the corporation and “evidence” Reverend Moon’s intent. Specifically, Article 3, Section 2 of the Articles of Incorporation stated that the UCI will “serve as an international organization assisting, advising, coordinating, and guiding the activities of Unification Churches organized and operated throughout the world.” Furthermore, Section 3 stated that the UCI will “promote the worship of God, and to study, understand and teach the Divine Principle, the new revelation of God, and, through the practical application of the Divine Principle . . . achieve the interdenominational, interreligious, and international unification of world Christianity and all other religions.” Additionally, Article 9 also stated that the Directors of UCI “recognize and acknowledge that the Reverend Sun Myung Moon has provided the inspiration and spiritual leadership for the founding of the Corporation and is the spiritual leader of the international Unification Church movement.” Plaintiffs assert that the Divine Principle is the theological textbook of the Church and contains the essential teachings of Reverend Moon. 6 From 1977 to 2006, UCI operated without controversy.5 From 1977 through 1992, Dr. Pak, as the president of the corporation, managed the corporation’s assets, to which various entities, notably one in Japan that is a plaintiff in this action, donated “hundreds of millions of dollars” allegedly to be “held in trust” and used for the Church’s endeavors. Both Dr. Pak and plaintiff Dr. Douglas D.M. Joo, who served as President of UCI from 1992 to 2005, understood that the corporation held its assets to fund the Church’s activities. Things changed radically beginning in 2006, when Preston Moon,6 one of Reverend Moon’s sons, became the new president of the UCI as well as one of the five directors. Two years later, Reverend Moon appointed another son, Sean Moon, as the next leader of the Church’s worldwide religious organization. This appointment allegedly disappointed Preston Moon, who “resolved not to take direction from his younger brother Sean Moon in matters relating to UCI,” and led Preston Moon to take a series of actions to divest the Church of control over UCI and divert the corporation from its alleged mission and intended purpose. 5 In 1980, UCI gave up its original tax-free status. 6 The named defendant is “Hyun Jin Moon (a/k/a Preston Moon).” The complaint consistently refers to him as Preston Moon, and we follow that practice here because the complaint is the focus of attention. 7 Plaintiffs’ challenge to those actions by Preston Moon and the other directors is the subject of this law suit.
Five plaintiffs are linked in this case. Three of them are entities related to Reverend Moon’s original Unification Church. The first entity is the lead plaintiff, Family Federation for World Peace and Unification International (“Family Federation”) that is located in South Korea and is the current name for the religious entity that directs the church’s activities worldwide and is now headed by Sean Moon.7 The second entity is the Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity (Japan) (the “Japanese Church”), which is the “corporate embodiment” of the Universal Church in Japan and was the primary donor of funds to UCI for several decades. The third entity is the Universal Peace Federation, a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation, which was a long-time major recipient of funding from UCI prior to the takeover by Preston Moon. The other two plaintiffs, Dr. Douglas D.M. Joo and Peter H. Kim, are individuals who were 7 As the trial court noted, when and how this succession occurred is not clear from the record. When naming his son Sean Moon as the next leader of the Church, Reverend Moon also named Sean Moon as the international president of Family Federation. Reverend Moon himself died at the age of 92 on September 3, 2012. 8 directors of UCI until ousted by Preston Moon. Plaintiffs challenge virtually all of the actions taken by Preston Moon and UCI since he gained control, summarized as follows.8 Plaintiffs first challenge the actions taken to secure control of the corporation’s Board of Directors. Under its by-laws, the corporation (which had no members or stockholders) functioned under the supervision of a five-person self-perpetuating Board of Directors. Plaintiffs assert that although the written bylaws provide that the Board of Directors shall elect successor directors, Reverend Moon, as the co-settlor of the trust and spiritual leader of the Church, had designated all individuals to serve on the Board of Directors of UCI. Plaintiffs further assert that the directors have “understood and accepted” this “long and continuous usage of this uniform practice” that constitutes a “binding convention” as to how the directors are to be nominated. In January 2009, Preston Moon held a UCI board meeting during which he arranged for the resignation of two of the five original directors and the election of defendants Michael Sommer and Richard Perea to the Board of Directors. Preston 8 Plaintiffs’ complaint runs to forty pages plus a number of attachments. We summarize the major assertions of wrongdoing. 9 Moon and his hand-picked directors allegedly stymied an effort by directors Joo and Kim to elect directors designated by Reverend Moon, which contravened the longstanding, uniform custom and practice of Reverend Moon nominating the individuals to be directors of the corporation. Preston Moon completed his takeover of the UCI Board of Directors in August 2009, when he convened a special board meeting where he, Sommer, and Perea voted to remove directors Joo and Kim from the Board of Directors.9 Defying instructions from the Family Foundation to reinstate the removed directors, Preston Moon, Sommer, and Perea instead added two of Preston Moon’s brothers-in-law to the Board of Directors. Plaintiffs contend that these steps constituted “unauthorized, illegal and improper actions” that vitiated the validity of subsequent UCI corporate acts. Next, plaintiffs challenge the diversion of corporate expenditures from the purposes set forth in the trust imposed on the corporation and in the original articles. In late 2009 and early 2010, Preston Moon was stripped of his positions on several Church entities. In response to this, Preston Moon announced that he would act through an entity known as the Global Peace Festival Foundation (“GPFF”), which he had created in 2009. Preston Moon further indicated that 9 The by-laws of the corporation permitted a majority of the Board to remove any director with or without cause. 10 GPFF would have no formal or legal association with the Family Federation, Universal Peace Foundation, or the Unification Church. This resulted in the Universal Peace Foundation no longer receiving funding from UCI as it had for decades. Preston Moon then began holding “Global Peace Festivals” through GPFF and used UCI corporation assets to fund the activities, in defiance of the wishes of Reverend Moon and the Family Foundation. In furtherance of his plan, on April 14, 2010, Preston Moon and the UCI Board of Directors, which he now controlled, amended the UCI Articles of Incorporation to disassociate the corporation from the Church, specifically by changing the name from “Unification Church International” to “UCI” and removing all references to the original purpose of advancing the Divine Principle and supporting Unification Churches worldwide. As amended, the Articles of Incorporation provided more generally only for promotion and support of the Unification Movement. Third, plaintiffs charge that Preston Moon used his powers as President and Chairman of UCI to engage in self-dealing transactions and to divert corporation assets for his own interests, in violation of his fiduciary duties and of the District of Columbia Nonprofit Corporation Act. Among other allegations, plaintiffs assert that Preston Moon caused a UCI subsidiary to engage in a property transaction with an entity wholly owned by Preston Moon at less than fair market value, and 11 that the transaction served no legitimate business purpose. Plaintiffs also allege that Preston Moon caused UCI to lend $2,000,000 to that entity owned by him and to enter into a consulting agreement with it to pay $120,000 a month when the consulting agreement served no legitimate business purpose. The plaintiffs’ complaint primarily relies on four legal theories, each set forth in a separate count of the complaint, in challenging these allegedly wrongful actions taken by Preston Moon and UCI. The first two counts, raised by all plaintiffs, are breach of the trust established by Reverend Moon with Dr. Pak, and breach of corporate fiduciary duties and ultra vires acts. The third count, raised only by Family Federation, is breach of fiduciary duty by Preston Moon as an agent of Family Federation, the principal.10 The fourth count, raised only by the Japanese Church, is breach of contract relating to its provision of funds to UCI. 11 With this background of events, we turn now to the appeals before us. As disposition of the cross-appeal could potentially be outcome-determinative apart 10 The other four directors are charged with aiding and abetting Preston Moon. 11 The Japanese Church also raises quasi-contractual claims of promissory estoppel and unjust enrichment as related bases for recovery. We see no need to separately address these counts. 12 from the merits, we first address the challenges raised in the cross-appeal asserting lack of personal jurisdiction, lack of standing, and failure to state a claim. II. Personal Jurisdiction, Standing, and Failure to State a Claim A. Personal Jurisdiction Each of the five individual defendants was a director of UCI during part or all of the time of the alleged wrongdoings and, according to the heading of the complaint, was a resident of the United States. However, none was a resident of the District. Accordingly, the trial court’s exercise of jurisdiction rests on the District’s Long Arm Statute—“more particularly, the provision that the District’s courts ‘may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a claim for relief arising from the person’s transacting any business in the District of Columbia.’” Daley v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc., 26 A.3d 723, 727 (D.C. 2011) (quoting D.C. Code § 13-423 (a) (2001 ed.)). “We have repeatedly reaffirmed” that the “transacting business provision [of the District’s Long Arm Statute] is coextensive with the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Id. (internal quotation marks removed); that is, jurisdiction extends as far as the due process clause permits. Flocco v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 13 752 A.2d 147, 162 (D.C. 2000). “[A] nonresident defendant need not have been physically present in the District” for our courts to exercise personal jurisdiction. Mouzavires v. Baxter, 434 A.2d 988, 992 (D.C. 1981). Rather, the critical issue is whether the individual’s “conduct and connection with the forum state are such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there.” Daley, supra, 26 A.3d at 727 (quoting Gonzalez v. Internacional de Elevadores, S.A., 891 A.2d 227, 234 (D.C. 2006)). In other words, the inquiry is whether maintenance of the suit against defendants “offend[s] ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.’” Shoppers Food Warehouse v. Moreno, 746 A.2d 320, 330 (D.C. 2000) (en banc) (quoting International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945)). The defendants rely on the Supreme Court case of Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186 (1977) for the proposition that asserting jurisdiction over nonresident directors of a forum-state corporation is inconsistent with due process.12 But, as 12 In Shaffer, Delaware law conferring jurisdiction via sequestration of the defendant’s property in that state “to compel the personal appearance of a nonresident defendant” was used by a plaintiff who owned one share of stock in a Delaware company and attempted to bring a derivative suit against the company and various officers and directors. The Court held that the principles of fairness and substantial justice from International Shoe also apply to an in rem proceeding, which under Delaware law and the facts of the case was insufficient to confer jurisdiction. 14 the Fourth Circuit rightly observed in Pittsburgh Terminal Corp. v. Mid Allegheny Corp., 831 F.2d 522 (4th Cir. 1987), the Shaffer case was based on Delaware’s assertion of jurisdiction based on property owned by the directors in that state, not on an assertion of jurisdiction based on a long-arm statute. Nor can these defendants benefit from the so-called corporate fiduciary shield, whereby “[a] court does not have jurisdiction over individual officers and employees of a corporation just because the court has jurisdiction over the corporation.” Flocco, supra, 752 A.2d at 162. However the doctrine may operate in normal circumstances, we have declined to adopt an “absolute fiduciary doctrine” that would amount to “a per se rule that an employee’s acts in his official capacity may never give rise to personal jurisdiction over him.” Id. at 163 n.20. Accordingly, our analysis is not a “mechanical test”; instead, we weigh the facts of each case. Holder v. Haarmann & Reimer Corp., 779 A.2d 264, 270-71 (D.C. 2001) (citation omitted). The case before us is somewhat akin to our decision in Daley. In that case, we upheld jurisdiction over the nonresident individual officers of a District of Columbia nonprofit corporation who were alleged to have enriched themselves without proper authority. Daley, supra, 26 A.3d at 728. While it is true that in certain respects, the individual officers in Daley had been present in the District, 15 the association itself consisted of a wide membership, unlike the structure of UCI. In the case before us, each defendant voluntarily undertook to serve as a director of a nonprofit District corporation without members or stockholders, and where the directors were self-perpetuating and in total control of the corporation, answerable only to themselves. The plaintiffs’ allegations are that these directors participated in wrongful activities going to the very essence of that corporation’s existence. Furthermore, apart from the fact that all the alleged wrongdoing affected a District of Columbia corporation, at least one of those acts and a significant one, the allegedly wrongful amendment of the Articles of Incorporation, indubitably occurred within the District by filing here.13 On the alleged facts of this case, we have little difficulty in concluding these directors clearly could anticipate being hauled into [a District of Columbia] court to account for their activities and that doing so does not violate notions of fair play and substantial justice. 13 “Once, however, the claim is related to acts in the District, § 13-423 does not require that the scope of the claim be limited to acts within the District.” Shoppers Warehouse, supra, 746 A.2d at 326 (quoting Cohane v. ArpejaCalifornia, Inc., 385 A.2d 153, 158-59 (D.C. 1978)). 16 B. Standing and Failure to State a Claim Although challenges based on lack of standing and failure to state a cause of action pursuant to Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12 (b)(6) are conceptually distinct, the interrelationship of the two in the case before us makes it useful to discuss both challenges together.14 We first address the first two counts brought by all five plaintiffs, resting on legal principles relating to trusts and to corporate fiduciary duties and ultra vires acts. Next, we address the count of breach of fiduciary duty as agent brought by Family Federation. Finally, we examine the contractual count brought by the Japanese Church. 1. Claims of Breach of Trust and Corporate Fiduciary Duties In contesting plaintiffs’ standing on the first two counts, the defendants primarily invoke the traditional rule that, generally, with respect to charitable trusts and charitable corporations “only a public officer, usually the state Attorney General, has standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of the trust.” Hooker 14 The defendants’ brief addresses the standing issues under the heading of failure to state a claim. 17 v. Edes Home, 579 A.2d 608, 612 (D.C. 1990).15 As we explained, this restriction primarily flows from the “impossibility of establishing a distinct justiciable interest on the part of a member of a large and constantly shifting benefited class, and the recurring burdens on the trust res and trustee of vexatious litigation that would result from recognition of a cause of action by any and all of a large number of individuals who might benefit incidentally from the trust.” Id. However, an important exception to the general rule exists “in situations where an individual seeking enforcement of the trust has a ‘special interest’ in continued performance of the trust distinguishable from that of the public at large.” Id. While “special interest” is a term of uncertain scope, the key consideration, discussed at length in Hooker, is whether finding a justiciable interest in a given plaintiff would contravene the considerations underlying the traditional rule. Id. at 612. The exponential expansion of charitable institutions justifies a reasonable relaxation of any rule limiting enforcement to a busy Attorney General. 15 That case involved a charitable corporation, but we have recognized the applicability of the rules relating to charitable trusts to such corporations. See Owen v. Board of Dirs. of the Washington City Orphan Asylum, 888 A.2d 255, 260 (D.C. 2005) [hereinafter WCOA II](“[W]e held that rules governing charitable trusts could be applied to charitable corporations, thus giving the Directors standing to sue.”). 18 We are quite satisfied that, in the circumstances here, each of the plaintiffs has the requisite “special interest” to provide it with standing to contest the complained-of actions by the defendants under both the trust and corporate wrongdoing theories. Two of the plaintiffs are the ousted directors. They occupy a status both as the alleged successor trustees to the Moon trust and as directors of a charitable corporation akin to a charitable trust.16 See Board. of Dirs. of the Washington City Orphan Asylum v. Board of Trs. of the Washington City Orphan Asylum, 798 A.2d 1068 (D.C. 2002) (explaining special interest exception for former directors challenging their ouster); WCOA II, supra note 13, 888 A.2d at 260. Family Federation asserts an interest in several capacities: as successor in interest to Reverend Moon and his role as settlor of the trust,17 in nominations of directors, 16 In addition to finding that the ousted directors have special interest standing, we also conclude that they fall within the definition of “among others” in D.C. Code § 19-1304.05 (2012 Repl.) for enforcement of charitable trusts, and may “maintain a proceeding to enforce the trust.” The District of Columbia is one of many jurisdictions that has adopted the Uniform Trust Code (“UTC”). D.C. Code § 19-1307.03 (g) (2012 Repl.), which establishes that when co-trustees are appointed to act as stewards of a trust, “[e]ach trustee shall exercise reasonable care to . . . [p]revent a co[-]trustee from committing a serious breach of trust; and . . . [c]ompel a co[-]trustee to redress a serious breach of trust.” 17 See D.C. Code § 19-1304.05 (c) (2012 Repl.) (“The settlor of a charitable trust, among others, may maintain a proceeding to enforce the trust.”). 19 and as an overarching superior and benefiting entity in UCI’s proper role to further the mission of Family Federation and the Unification Church. The Universal Peace Foundation was a major beneficiary from UCI for three decades, comfortably falling within the Hooker requirement that a beneficiary be in a class limited in number and that the nature of the challenge be to an extraordinary measure.18 Furthermore, in Hooker, the plaintiffs granted standing were not even current beneficiaries of the charitable corporation, only prospective ones, quite contrary to the Universal Peace Foundation’s long--term status here. And the contributions by the Japanese Church go far beyond the asserted rule that donors ordinarily cannot sue charities unless they restrict their gifts, as we discuss in subpart 3 infra.19 The defendants argue, however, that even if the plaintiffs have standing, “the complaint does not allege facts permitting plausible inferences that UCI is governed by a secret trust, by-law, and agency agreement that are each inconsistent with its formal and legally-binding Articles of Incorporation and By-laws.” This 18 All plaintiffs are challenging an extraordinary measure—fundamentally changing the purpose of UCI and taking steps to divest itself from the Unification Church. 19 In addition, the Japanese Church alleges that it was a co-settlor of the trust. 20 argument essentially mirrors the fallacy in limiting considerations to formal documents discussed in the abstention context in part III (B)(1) infra. We see no inherent reason why any of the allegations in the complaint should be dismissed at this point as utterly implausible, given the legal doctrines governing the counts set forth. To survive a 12 (b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint “must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Grimes v. District of Columbia, 89 A.3d 107, 111-12 (D.C. 2014) (quoting Potomac Dev. Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531, 544 (D.C. 2011) (internal quotations omitted)). The facts pleaded must amount to more than simple legal conclusions, id. at 112, i.e., “more than an unadorned, the-defendantunlawfully-harmed-me accusation[s],” Potomac Dev. Corp., supra, 28 A.3d at 544, and when well-pleaded, we “assume their veracity and then determine whether they plausibly give rise to an entitlement to relief.” Grimes, supra, 89 A.3d at 112 (citation omitted). In particular, defendants contend that plaintiffs’ claim must fail because they failed to plead sufficient facts to plausibly establish that Reverend Moon intended to create an oral trust in 1975, and that the trust was extinguished when UCI came 21 into existence as a corporation. However the evidence may eventually turn out to be, we are not persuaded that any decision on this issue can be based on an inadequacy in the complaint. A writing is not required to create a valid trust. Intent may be established by “written or spoken language or by conduct, in light of all surrounding circumstances.” Cabaniss v. Cabaniss, 464 A.2d 87, 91 (D.C. 1983). And it is not implausible that the establishment of UCI was intended to continue the trust in corporate form. The trustee of a trust has the “[p]ower to form a corporation or other entity . . . for the purpose of carrying on business or investment activities of the trust” and the trustee’s various fiduciary duties apply “to operation of the entity.” Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 86 cmt. e (2007). Moreover, unlike the situation in Save Immaculate/Dunblane, Inc. v. Immaculata Preparatory Sch. Inc., 514 A.2d 1152, 1157 (D.C. 1986), relied on by defendants, here the alleged trust can be viewed as not in conflict with the Articles of Incorporation of UCI, but rather a direction for their exercise. 2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty as Agent “Whether an agency relationship exists in a given situation depends on the particular facts of each case.” Judah v. Reiner, 744 A.2d 1037, 1040 (D.C. 2000) (citing District of Columbia v. Hampton, 666 A.2d 30, 38 (D.C. 1995)). As 22 already indicated, the complaint identifies Family Federation as the entity that directs Unification Churches worldwide. It asserts that the Church designates certain organizations as “providential organizations,” which are organizations that were founded by Reverend Moon as part of his wider ministry. It further asserts that heads of these providential organizations are appointed by, and subject to removal by, Family Federation. UCI is said to be one of these providential organizations. In the third count, Family Federation makes the following assertion: As President and Chairman of the Board of Directors of UCI, Preston Moon is the head of a providential organization of the Unification Church and an agent of the Family Federation. In accepting this position, Preston Moon agreed to act on behalf of the Family Federation and Subject to the Family Federation’s control and direction. Family Federation also alleges that the other four directors wrongfully aided and abetted Preston Moon in his breaches of his duties as agent of Family Federation. Specifically in regards to count three, breach of principal-agent relationship, but in a sense in all claims, Family Federation asserts that it is the principal and UCI is the agent. Taking these assertions as true, Family Federation as principal clearly has standing to assert breaches of the fiduciary relationship created by Moon’s 23 position as agent. Nor is such a relationship inherently implausible, given the other allegations in the complaint. 3. Breach of Contract and Quasi-Contract Claims The Japanese Church’s participation in this litigation is based primarily on its prominent role in funding the operations of UCI with hundreds of millions of dollars over a period of years. The Japanese Church alleges a contractual breach: “A condition of the Japanese Church’s contributions to UCI was the understanding that those funds would be used in a manner consistent with the purposes for which the [UCI] was established.” It is true that the general rule at common law was that “a donor who has made a completed charitable contribution . . . as an absolute gift . . . had no standing to bring an action to enforce the terms of his or her gift or trust . . . .” Carl J. Herzog Found., Inc. v. University of Bridgeport, 699 A.2d 995, 997 (Conn. 1997); accord Irish J. Goodwin, Donor Standing to Enforce Charitable Gifts: Civil Society vs. Donor Empowerment, 58 Vand. L. Rev. 1093, 1145 (2005). But 24 the Japanese Church denies that the funding it provided was “an absolute gift.”20 Each claim strongly characterizes the contributions as a restricted gift made to a charitable corporation; funds that were contributed pursuant to a “condition” or “promise” or “understanding.” Like any other transaction, there is no inherent reason why funds could not be provided to a corporation, charitable or otherwise, with a contractual understanding as to how the funds were to be used and thus standing is established with respect to enforcing the restriction on the donations. Turning to whether the Japanese Church has pleaded sufficient facts, we agree with the trial judge that “[b]ased on the facts provided in the [c]omplaint, the [c]ourt can reasonably infer that UCI had an obligation to use [the Japanese Church’s] funds for an express purpose, and it breached that obligation by 20 The Restatement recognizes that when a contribution or disposition is made to an “institution for a specific purpose . . . such as to support medical research . . . or to establish a scholarship fund in a certain field of study,” Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 28, cmt. a (Am. Law Inst. 2003), then such a specifically targeted gift or contribution “creates a charitable trust of which the institution is the trustee . . . .” Id. The Restatement goes on to note that when a “nonprofit organization receives a restricted gift or devise that applicable law treats as a charitable trust . . . special-interest standing entitles the settlor to maintain a suit against the trustee-organization,” although “only to enforce the restriction.” Restatement (Third) of Trusts § 94, cmt. g (3) (Am. Law Inst. 2012). While a restricted gift is not “a trust in the technical sense” and is “not bound by all the limitations and rules which apply to a technical trustee,” the nonprofit organization “may not . . . receive a gift made for one purpose and use it for another . . . .” St. Joseph’s Hosp. v. Bennett, 22 N.E.2d 305, 308 (N.Y. 1939). 25 allegedly diverting funds away from the specified purposes for which they were contributed,” and thus pleaded sufficient facts for its contract claim. At the pleading stage, such a contractual or quasi-contractual relationship is not implausible and the Japanese Church has standing to assert the claims. In summation, all plaintiffs have alleged their respective injuries, traceable to the defendants’ actions, and the trial court can provide redress if the plaintiffs meet their respective burdens. See Padou v. District of Columbia, 77 A.3d 383, 389 (D.C. 2013). All parties have the requisite standing. Moreover, each claim has been pleaded with sufficient facts to withstand a Rule 12 (b)(6) challenge. The trial judge’s denial of the defendants’ motion taken on cross-appeal is therefore affirmed.