Opinion ID: 494567
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Dant's Civil Action

Text: 13 Dant then brought this suit against WMATA, Lawrence, and the District of Columbia. The complaint recites the following counts: (1) false arrest and false imprisonment; (2) malicious prosecution; (3) negligence in the design, operation and maintenance of metrorail's farecard system, and in the training of WMATA police officers; (4) abuse of process; and (5) deprivation of civil rights in violation of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983. All counts except the third (negligence) allege violations by both the District and WMATA. Officer Lawrence's conduct is implicated in counts one and five only. 14 Appellee WMATA moved under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) to dismiss all counts in the complaint against itself and appellee Lawrence. It argued that WMATA is equivalent to a state agency enjoying absolute immunity from tort liability, and that section 80 of the WMATA Compact contains only a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that does not apply to Dant's claims. Section 80 of the Compact provides thus: 15 The Authority shall be liable for its contracts and for its torts and those of its Directors, officers, employees and agent [sic] committed in the conduct of any proprietary function, in accordance with the law of the applicable signatory (including rules on conflict of laws), but shall not be liable for any torts occurring in the performance of a governmental function. 16 Compact Sec. 80 (emphasis added). Accordingly, WMATA contended, all claims except count four (abuse of process) relate to protected governmental functions, and the abuse of process claim could only be maintained against the District of Columbia as the prosecuting authority. See Brief for WMATA and Lawrence at 15-16, 28-29 (Brief for WMATA). 17 The District of Columbia did not join WMATA's motion to dismiss. The district court granted WMATA's motion and also sua sponte dismissed all claims against the District. The court explained the reasons for its decision in a subsequent memorandum opinion. According to the court, Dant's common law claims were on all fours with Stebbins v. WMATA, 495 A.2d 741 (D.C.App.1985), and Dant's section 1983 claims are insufficient as a matter of law. Dant v. District of Columbia, et al., Civ. No. 83-1063, mem. op. at 1 (D.D.C. Dec. 28, 1985) (District Court Mem. Op.). Because the court relied on deposition evidence in reaching its decision and did not limit its reasoning to the facts alleged in the pleadings, Dant argues the decision should be reviewed as a motion for summary judgment. Brief for Dant at xix. WMATA responds that the Court of Appeals may affirm on the basis of any grounds supported by the record. Brief for WMATA at 10. 18 The District of Columbia has filed a brief urging affirmance on prosecutorial and governmental immunity grounds.