Opinion ID: 1476402
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Membership in the Class

Text: In its order granting Akin Gump's motion, the trial court failed to state whether it was dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, under Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6), granting judgment on the pleadings under Rule 12(c), or granting summary judgment under Rule 56. However, because both parties attached documents to their pleadings and because the court considered those documents in rendering its decision  the court specifically relied on Judge Greene's order of April 27, 1989, defining the members of the class  we treat the dismissal as a grant of summary judgment. See, e.g., Kitt v. Pathmakers, Inc., 672 A.2d 76, 79 (D.C.1996) ([w]hen the trial court decides a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by considering factual material outside the complaint, the motion shall be treated as if filed pursuant to Rule 56). Summary judgment is appropriate only when the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, establishes that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 56(c); see, e.g., Colbert v. Georgetown University, 641 A.2d 469, 472 (D.C.1994) (en banc); see generally Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). Applying the same substantive standard as the trial court, we conduct an independent review of the record. See Partnership Placements, Inc. v. Landmark Insurance Co., 722 A.2d 837, 841 (D.C.1998). Ms. Taylor acknowledged in her complaint that she was evicted from her Tyler House apartment in June 1987. Because she was not a tenant of the building on the critical date, July 27, 1988  the date when the first motion for class certification was filed  she was not a member of the classes that were certified by both the Superior Court and the United States District Court and is therefore not entitled to any of the damages recovered from the judgments entered in either court. On that point there is no material issue of fact, and Akin Gump is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court properly granted Akin Gump's motion for summary judgment.