Dist. Cablevision Ltd. P'shp v. Bassin - 828 A.2d 714 (D.C. 2003)

Rule:

The Consumer Protection Procedures Act (CPPA), D.C. Code Ann. §§ 28-3901 to 3911 (2001), is a comprehensive statute designed to provide procedures and remedies for a broad spectrum of practices that injure consumers. While the CPPA enumerates a number of specific unlawful trade practices, D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3904, the enumeration is not exclusive. A main purpose of the CPPA is to assure that a just mechanism exists to remedy all improper trade practices. D.C. Code Ann. § 28-3901(b)(1). Trade practices that violate other laws, including the common law, also fall within the purview of the CPPA.

Facts:

The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act affords a panoply of strong remedies, including treble damages, punitive damages and attorneys' fees, to consumers who are victimized by unlawful trade practices. In this case two consumers sued District Cablevision Limited Partnership (DCLP) under the Act on behalf of a class of cable television service subscribers who, they alleged, paid illegally excessive late payment fees levied by DCLP. The trial court ruled that the causes of action were governed by a three-year statute of limitations rather than a four-year statute as the plaintiffs proposed. After a jury trial, the plaintiffs obtained a judgment against DCLP for $ 3,414,411.00 in compensatory damages before trebling. In a second phase of the trial, the jury awarded an additional $ 3,274,080.00 in punitive damages. The trial court upheld the plaintiffs' cause of action under the Consumer Protection Procedures Act and the jury's compensatory damage award, but ruled that the evidence was insufficient to support punitive or treble damages. Accordingly, the court set aside the punitive damages award. The court also ruled that the plaintiffs were not entitled to prejudgment interest on their award. Finally, the court awarded the plaintiffs $ 425,916.25 in attorneys' fees. Both the plaintiffs and DCLP have appealed.

Issue:

Were the plaintiffs entitled to invoke the CPPA to remedy DCLP's violation, in charging a late fee, of common law requirements for a valid liquidated damages clause?

Answer:

Yes

Conclusion:

The court affirmed in part and remanded in part. The late fees violated the rules of the District's common law, which made imposition of the late fees actionable under the CPPA. The evidence did not support punitive damages because the cable provider had a legitimate business goal in increasing the fee, namely, to deter delinquencies. However, plaintiffs could recover treble damages, which were remedial rather than punitive. The three-year statute of limitations of D.C. Code § 12-301 (8) (2001) applied, rather than the four-year statute of limitations governing breach of contract actions; plaintiffs were not suing for breach of contract but sought to invalidate the late fee and recover the sums they had paid. The cable provider was properly allowed to recoup the portion of late fees it had collected that were actual damages, and plaintiffs were entitled to prejudgment interest.