Michael Francis and Queue, LLC, Appellants v. Munir Rehman and Hak, LLC, Appellees (D.C. 2015)

Summary

The court held that the Superior Court improperly dismissed claims arising from alleged design-services agreements based on the possible illegality of Francis's architectural work. Because the complaint alleged that the designs were obtained from and prepared under the direct supervision and responsibility of a licensed architect, illegality was not established on the face of the complaint and could not support dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6). The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holding

Dismissal of the breach-of-contract claim concerning the 1219 Connecticut project. The Superior Court erred in dismissing the breach-of-contract claim because the complaint adequately described the alleged contract, the parties' obligations, and the alleged breach, and did not establish on its face that the agreement was illegal or unenforceable.

Dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim based on design services. The dismissal of the unjust-enrichment claim insofar as it sought compensation for design services was erroneous because the licensing defense was not established from the face of the complaint.

Dismissal of the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim concerning the 1219 Connecticut project. The dismissal of the fiduciary-duty claim concerning the 1219 project was also erroneous because it was based solely on the assumption that the underlying contract was void and unenforceable.

Procedure for resolving the architectural-licensing defense. Before determining that no valid contract was formed, the Superior Court was required to treat the motion as one for summary judgment and provide appellants notice and an adequate opportunity to submit affidavits, documentation, or other evidence concerning the nature and supervision of the work.

Michael Francis and Queue, LLC, Appellants v. Munir Rehman and Hak, LLC, Appellees

Summary

Holding

Cited authorities

Cited by