IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

CIVIL DIVISION

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,
Plaintiff, 2019 CA 004144 B
v.
CURTIS INVESTMENT GROUP, INC.,
Judge Yvonne Williams
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Before the Court is Plaintiff the District of Columbia’s (“the District”) Motion for a

Preliminary Injunction, filed on June 27, 2019. No opposition has been filed. For the following

reasons, the Motion shall be GRANTED.

On June 24, 2019, the District filed a Complaint against Defendant Curtis Investment

Group, Inc. (“Curtis Investment”) alleging discriminatory rental policies and practices in

violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”). On June 27, 2019, the

District filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to preclude Curtis Investment from refusing

to rent apartments to individuals receiving housing assistance and from posting discriminatory

advertisements that violate the DCHRA. On July 18, 2019, Curtis Investment filed an Answer to

the Complaint. Curtis Investment has not filed an opposition to the District’s Motion for

Preliminary Injunction.

Rule 12-I(e) allows the Court to treat unopposed motions as conceded. “The conceded

motion provision is a judicial housekeeping device intended to serve the cause of judicial

efficiency and case management and to benefit the administration of justice.” District of

Columbia v. Davis, 811 A.2d 800, 803 (D.C. 2002) (quotation marks and citation omitted).

Conceded procedural motions may simply be granted “without an examination of the merits,”

1
see id. at 803, while conceded dispositive motions may generally only be granted “where the

movant has established a prima facie entitlement to relief.” Id. at 804. Based on its examination

of the record, the Court finds that the District has established a prima facie entitlement to the

relief it seeks in its Motion.

There are four factors to establish a prima facie entitlement to a preliminary injunction:

(1) that Plaintiff is substantially likely to succeed on the merits, (2) that Plaintiff will suffer

irreparable harm during the pendency of the action, (3) that Plaintiff will suffer more harm if the

preliminary injunction is denied than its opponent will suffer if the preliminary injunction is

granted, and (4) that the public interest will not be disserved by the preliminary injunction.

District of Columbia v. E Trans-Waste of Md., Inc., 758 A.2d 1, 14 (D.C. 2000).

First, the District argues that it is likely to succeed on the merits because Curtis

Investment’s conduct is discriminatory under the DCHRA. Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss at 4. The

DCHRA provisions prohibit the refusal of property based on an individual’s income and prohibit

discriminatory advertising showing a preference based on an individual’s source of income.

D.C. Code § 2-1402.21(a)(1); D.C. Code § 2-1402.21(a)(5). In its Motion, the District shows

that Curtis violated these provisions by refusing to sell homes to individuals using housing

assistance and by advertising in its postings that it does not “[accept] any vouchers or rapid

rehousing.” Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss at 5. Based on these arguments the Court finds that the first

factor is satisfied.

Second, the District argues that Curtis Investment’s discriminatory practices irreparably

injure the District and its residents. Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss at 6. The District further supports this

argument by stating that Curtis Investment’s actions violate a civil rights statute where

irreparable injury is already presumed. Id. Additionally, the District contends that Curtis’

2
ongoing maintenance of its discriminatory advertising and its policies and practices create

irreparable injury because individuals who receive housing assistance cannot apply for housing

at Curtis’s properties. Id. Moreover, the individuals are vulnerable to these policies because

they are under critical time constraints to receive housing and other services. Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss

at 7. The Court finds that the District puts forth a valid argument that satisfies the second factor

in determining a prima facie case for a preliminary injunction.

Third, the District contends that Curtis Investment will suffer less harm than the District

and its residents. Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss at 7. The District argues that because this is an unlawful

practice, Curtis will not suffer any harm by ending its discriminatory practices. Id. Additionally,

the District reiterates that its residents will be unable to seek housing to which they are entitled to

and the District would be unable to protect them with this unlawful practice in place. Id. As such,

the District finds that Curtis Investment will suffer far less than the District and its residents. Id.

The Court finds that the District’s argument sufficiently satisfies the third factor.

Finally, the District argues that the public interest weighs in favor of granting the

preliminary injunction. The District cites the DCHRA’s purpose for ending discrimination for

any other reason other than individual merit. Pl.’s Mot. Dismiss at 7.The District argues that a

preliminary injunction would advance the Council’s stated goal and thus benefit the public

interest because it would end the income discrimination against individuals. See id. Based on the

argument set forth, the Court finds that the District satisfies the fourth factor. Because the

preliminary injunction furthers an anti-discriminatory purpose, the Court finds that this serves

the public interest because it ensures that individuals are not refused to rent based on their

income. With all four factors combined, the Court concludes that the District presents a prima

3
facie entitlement to the preliminary injunction. Accordingly, for good cause shown, and because

no opposition has been filed, the Court shall GRANT the Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Accordingly, it is on this 24th day of July, 2019, hereby,

ORDERED that the Motion for Preliminary Injunction shall be GRANTED; and it is

further

ORDERED that Curtis Investment shall cease refusing to rent apartments to individuals

receiving housing assistance; and it is further

ORDERED that Curtis Investment shall cease posting any discriminatory advertisements

in violation of the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_____________________
Judge Yvonne Williams
Date: July 24, 2019

Copies to:

Karl A. Racine
Toni Michelle Jackson
Michael A. Tilghman II
Vikram Swaruup
441 Fourth Street, NW, Suite 600 South
Washington, D.C. 20001
Counsel for the District

Alyssa W. Chang
19214 Forest Brook Road
Germantown, Maryland 20874
Counsel for Curtis Investment