Opinion ID: 8704064
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Count IV: Constructive Fraud

Text: Finally, Defendant contends that Himmelstein’s constructive-fraud count should be dismissed as he cannot allege the “confidential relationship” essential for such a claim. See Mot. at 11-12. Himmelstein’s relationship with Comcast is limited to that of a cable subscriber to his cable-services provider, Defendant argues, and there are no facts suggesting the relationship extended beyond' the terms of their contract. See id. at 12. Plaintiff responds that no confidential relationship is required to assert a cause of action for constructive fraud and that he has alleged sufficient facts to sustain this claim based on Comcast’s breach of its legal duty to keep an accurate assessment of Himmelstein’s account and to accurately report the status of the account to credit agencies. See Opp. at 14-15. The Court rejects Himmelstein’s attempt to eliminate the special-relationship requirement from a constructive-fraud claim. Even if this relationship were not required, the claim would nonetheless fail as Plaintiff has not alleged that he relied on Comcast’s representations. Under District of Columbia law, a plaintiff claiming fraud must prove “(1) the defendant made a false representation; (2) in reference to material fact; (3) with knowledge of its falsity; (4) with the intent to deceive the plaintiff; (5) the plaintiff acted in reasonable reliance on that representation; (6) which consequently resulted in provable damages.” Essroc Cement Corp. v. CTI/D.C., Inc., 740 F.Supp.2d 131, 145 (D.D.C.2010); see also Schiff v. AARP, 697 A.2d 1193, 1198 (D.C. 1997) (citing Howard v. Riggs Nat’l Bank, 432 A.2d 701, 706 (D.C.1981)). Constructive fraud includes all the same elements as actual fraud, except the intent to deceive. See De May v. Moore & Bruce, L.L.P., 584 F.Supp.2d 170, 185 (D.D.C. 2008) (“neither actual dishonesty nor intent to deceive is the essential element [of constructive fraud]; and negligence so gross as to deceive might be such fraud”) (citing Rick v. United States, 161 F.2d 897, 899 (D.C.Cir.1947)). In addition to these requirements, constructive fraud requires a plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of a confidential relationship between himself and the defendant, “by which the defendant is able to exercise extraordinary influence over plaintiff.” McWilliams Ballard, Inc. v. Broadway Mgmt. Co., 636 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 n. 7 (D.D.C.2009) (quoting Witherspoon v. Philip Morris, 964 F.Supp. 455, 461 (D.D.C.1997)) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Lee v. Bos, 874 F.Supp.2d 3, 7-8 (D.D.C.2012) (citing 3D Global Solutions, Inc. v. MVM, Inc., 552 F.Supp.2d 1, 8 (D.D.C.2008)). The requisite “special relationship” requires more than parties’ transacting at arms’ length and is one “in which one party has gained the trust and confidence of the other, enabling the first party to exercise extraordinary influence over the other.” 3D Global Solutions, Inc., 552 F.Supp.2d at 8 (quoting Witherspoon, 964 F.Supp. at 461) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Cordoba Initiative Corp. v. Deak, 900 F.Supp.2d 42, 50, No. 11-1541, 2012 WL 5285132, at  (D.D.C. Oct. 26, 2012) (special relationship where “special trust and confidence” based on Deak’s “advising and supporting Cordoba over several years”). In Goldman v. Bequai, 19 F.3d 666 (D.C.Cir.1994), this Circuit, applying District of Columbia law, provided guidance on the factors to use in determining whether such a relationship exists: “Mental capacity, age, education, business knowledge, and the extent to which the alleged victim entrusted her affairs to the other party are among the relevant factors in establishing the existence of such a relation.” Id. at 674. Given this high threshold, the Court declines Plaintiffs invitation to find “constructive fraud, absent a confidential relationship, where a defendant’s conduct violates a public confidence.” Opp. at 14 (pointing to authority from outside the District of Columbia,' such as “[m]any state and federal courts, including Maryland,” but acknowledging no precedent for such an interpretation in D.C.). Holding that a confidential relationship is required, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not alleged sufficient facts to suggest its existence here. As a court in this District noted in Witherspoon, “Establishing a confidential relationship is a difficult burden.” 964 F.Supp. at 461. The court there rejected the plaintiffs argument that the manufacturer-consumer relationship could be characterized as confidential because of its length of time — 38 years— and the fact that the consumer had received “personalized mail” from the manufacturer, noting that the plaintiff was “only one of millions of consumers and potential consumers targeted by Defendant’s advertisements,” and the personalized mail the plaintiff received from the defendant “is not enough to create a relationship of trust that could be likened to one with a close family member, attorney, or a priest from whom one gets personal counseling.” Id. at 461-62; see also Geiger v. Crestar Bank, 778 A.2d 1085, 1095 (D.C.2001) (no special relationship where parties’ interactions were limited to contractual agreement and no facts “detailing a history of interaction between Mr. Geiger and Crestar which extended their relationship beyond the provisions of the account agreement”). Similarly, Himmelstein’s interactions with Comcast did not create any relationship of special trust, nor do his phone contacts with various Comcast representatives subsequent to the termination of services transform this basic consumer relationship into something more. Even if Himmelstein could allege such a relationship, he cannot satisfy the detrimental reliance element of constructive fraud, as he does not allege that he took any action — or refrained from taking • any — in reliance on Comcast’s representations. See Essroc, 740 F.Supp.2d at 145. The Court will thus grant Defendant’s Motion as to Count IV.