Opinion ID: 2559108
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Appellees' Motions to Dismiss and the Rulings of the Trial Court

Text: On March 20, 2007, appellees moved jointly to dismiss Mr. Grayson's claims, contending that his complaint fails to state a claim under the [CPPA] because plaintiff cannot show that he or any other customer was injured. In an oral ruling, the trial court determined that Mr. Grayson lacked standing, noting that to maintain a claim under the [CPPA], the plaintiff has to produce some evidence showing that there's some damage that he has suffered as a result of the unlawful trade practice. The court declared that Mr. Grayson is a resident of the State of Florida and not the District of Columbia. Furthermore, the court reasoned that Mr. Grayson has held the unclaimed property [his calling card] and still has possession of it according to his own complaint. He has the property and he can use it at any time. Hence, it is not abandoned property and there is no violation because he has the means and the opportunity to use the property at any time he chooses. The fact that Mr. Grayson's complaint alleges injuries to others and the District of Columbia under the CPPA is irrelevant; Mr. Grayson cannot bring a claim under the CPPA if he himself has not suffered any injury. In addition, the trial court concluded that even if Mr. Grayson suffered an injury, the complaint alleges an injury that belongs to the District of Columbia, and not to him (that is, the failure of defendants to notify the District of Columbia that they have been holding unclaimed property). Consequently, Mr. Grayson failed to ple[a]d the elements necessary to permit survival under a 12(b)(6) motion. AOL lodged an amended June 27, 2008 motion to dismiss Mr. Breakman's CPPA claim under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(1) and (6). AOL asserted that Mr. Breakman lacked standing to bring his claim, and stated, in part: The Complaint . . . is devoid of any allegations that [Mr.] Breakman isor ever has beena subscriber of AOL's dial-up services . . . . [Mr.] Breakman does not allege that he is part of the class that he represents . . . . He does not allege that AOL breached any duty to him, that he was mislead by AOL, or that he sustained any actual, consequential, or exemplary damages as a result of AOL's alleged conduct. After reviewing the applicable CPPA statutory provisions, and case law governing standing, the trial court determined, in accordance with cited precedent, that notwithstanding the [CPPA's] broad remedial provisions, . . . a plaintiff must allege a personal injury in fact to have standing, but that no reasonable juror could find plaintiff has sustained injury in fact.