eNotes: Liability – March 2025 – Washington, DC

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Washington, DC Case Summary

Kubichek v. Unlimited Biking Washington, D.C., LLC
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
2025 D.C. App. LEXIS 19

Decided: February 6, 2025

The Trial Court properly dismissed the case as to both Defendants upon one Defendant filing a Motion to dismiss; Court did not act sua sponte in raising an affirmative defense on behalf of the Defendant who did not file such Motion.

Background

Plaintiffs were pedestrians in DC who were struck by Defendant, who was operating a Segway-scooter while participating in a guided Segway tour. A Co-Defendant, Unlimited Biking, operated that tour. On December 30, 2022, a little over three (3) years later, Plaintiffs filed two Complaints. One alleged that Defendant Samonte’s negligent operation of the Segway caused their injuries. The other alleged that Defendant Unlimited Biking breached its duty to properly train and supervise Defendant.

Defendant Samonte moved to dismiss the Complaint. He argued that Plaintiffs filed their Complaint after the three-year statute of limitations for negligence had lapsed. Plaintiffs opposed the Motion contending that the statute was tolled by the Court’s COVID-19 Tolling Orders, among other things. The Trial Court consolidated the two cases and granted Defendant Samonte’s Motion to dismiss, concluding that the COVID-19 Emergency Orders only tolled the deadlines that fell within the tolling period. The Court held that Plaintiffs’ limitations period was not tolled because their accident occurred before the tolling period began, and their three-year statute of limitations lapsed after the tolling period expired. Granting this Motion led to dismissing Defendant Unlimited Biking from the case even though it had not yet filed an Answer. Plaintiffs appealed.

Holding

The DC Court of Appeals first addressed the Trial Court’s dismissal of both Defendants, noting that the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal even though the corporate Defendant was never served. It found that the Appellate Court had jurisdiction to review all final Orders and judgments. In defining what is considered “final,” the Appellate Court cited Rolinski v. Lewis, 828 A.2d 739, 745-46 (D.C. 2003), stating that an order or judgment is deemed as “final” only if it disposes the entire case on its merit with nothing further for the court to decide. The Appellate Court held that when the Trial Court Judge entered an Order dismissing both Defendants, the Order was final and thus appealable.

In affirming the Trial Court’s decision, the Court further held that the Trial Court did not act sua sponte when it essentially imputed an affirmative defense raised by one Defendant to dismiss the Complaint against the corporate Defendant who never answered the Complaint. The Court of Appeals held that the Trial Court “did not act entirely” sua sponte since the allegations in the Complaint were the same against both Defendants, such that a dismissal of both Defendants was proper. Moreover, Plaintiffs had an opportunity to litigate the proper application of the tolling Orders and statute of limitations issues when they opposed the individual Defendant’s Motion to dismiss.

Questions about this case can be directed to Joanne Lee at (202) 945-9504 or jlee@tthlaw.com.