August 19, 2003

DC Court of Appeals Affirms Multi-Million Dollar Judgment Against District Cablevision

Putting an end to nine years of litigation, the D.C. Court of Appeals has affirmed a judgment against District Cablevision under the D.C. Consumer Protection Procedures Act, in the amount of $3,414,411 in compensatory damages, $425,916.25 in attorney's fees, prejudgment interest, plus treble damages. This was a class action based on illegally excessive late payment fees the cable company levied on its subscribers.

Significantly, the Court of Appeals held that treble damages must be awarded to the plaintiffs even though the evidence was insufficient to support punitive damages:

Since the purpose of treble damages under the CPPA is remedial rather than punitive, the plaintiffs in this case were entitled to an award of treble damages without the showing of egregious conduct and malice required for punitive damages. We agree with the Williams court that “[o]nce it is established that a consumer [has] suffered any damage, the CPPA authorizes courts to treble damages without further findings.”

District Cablevision, LP v. Bassin, No. 98-CV-1837 (D.C. July 17, 2003).

Aug 19, 2003 10:29:10 PM | Class Actions, Consumer Protection Statutes, District of Columbia

The comments to this entry are closed.

NEXT POST
Sept. 11 suit seeks 1 trillion in damages In a memorandum opinion in this case, U.S. District Court Judge Robertson neatly summarizes this remarkable action: In this action, more than two thousand victims, family members of victims or representatives of victims of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, seek to hold accountable the persons and entities that funded and supported the international terrorist organization known as al Qaeda, which is now generally understood to have carried out the attacks. Plaintiffs have sued nearly two hundred entities or persons -- governments, government agencies, banks, charitable foundations, and individuals, including members of the Saudi royal family -- broadly alleging that each of them, in one way or another, directly or indirectly, provided material support, aided and abetted, or conspired with the terrorists who perpetrated the attacks. Damages claimed exceed one trillion dollars. In this opinion, Judge Robertson decides the following: that this Court does have subject matter jurisdiction of plaintiffs’ claims; that this Court has personal jurisdiction of MWL, Khudeira, and AHIF; that personal jurisdiction of Al Rajhi is uncertain, and plaintiffs may take limited jurisdictional discovery with respect to that party; that venue is properly laid in the District of Columbia; that plaintiffs’ civil RICO claims must be dismissed for want of standing; that the complaint adequately states ATA, ATCA, and common law intentional tort claims against AHIF; that plaintiffs’ negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress claims against AHIF must be dismissed for failure to state a claim; and that Al Rajhi and Khudeira may move for...
PREVIOUS POST
Appellate Court Can't Construe What It Can't Read Howard Bashman's blog How Appealing reports that "Failure to include key document in appendix on appeal leads federal appellate court to summarily affirm". The 10th Circuit was not amused when Travelers appealed on a coverage issue and a copy of the insurance policy was not included in the record on appeal. It's not enough to include the policy or contract; the Court has to be able to read it. Blurry copies or tiny print or both are just as bad as not having the document at all.

DS

The Typepad Team

Search

Recent Comments