SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARY

Washington, DC Case Summary

Woodley v. Woodberry Vill. Apt.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
No. 23-CV-0965

Decided: March 16, 2026

A tenant has no duty to mitigate damages for a landlord’s breach of the warranty of habitability, by vacating the rental unit, absent landlord’s compliance with D.C. Code § 42-3505.01(f)(1).

Background

Plaintiff, the tenant, sued Defendant, the landlord, in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia alleging discrimination and breach of the warranty of habitability. Subsequent to filing the Complaint, Plaintiff also filed a Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction Motion, alleging Defendant cut-off his electricity to force him out of his rental unit. At the TRO/PI Motion hearing, the Judge-in Chambers heard testimony from two witness – the Defendant’s property manager and a DCRA Housing supervisor. The Court denied Plaintiff’s TRO/PI Motion, finding that he failed to prove the first factor in the test for injunctive relief, that being “likelihood that he would succeed on the merits of his legal claim.” The Court relied on the testimony of Defendant’s property manager that Defendant had offered to relocate Plaintiff and/or offered him a one-time payment of $5,000 to find new housing. The case continued and ultimately concluded with a bench trial.

At trial, Plaintiff presented evidence in the form of his testimony and photographs detailing the housing conditions. Defendant neither cross-examined Plaintiff, nor offered any witnesses to testify. Defendant’s sole source of evidence was a series of exhibits, including a letter from Defendant’s counsel to Plaintiff detailing that due to the renovations that would take place in the building, Plaintiff’s “electrical, plumbing and other building systems” would be interrupted. The Trial Court issued a written judgment in which it found no discrimination, but did find that Defendant breached the warranty of habitability. As for damages, the Trial Judge found that Plaintiff had failed to mitigate his damages, such that he was only entitled to $7,500 for the “unspecified” time period before Defendant offered him relocation or monetary assistance. Plaintiff timely appealed.

Holding

The Court of Appeals disagreed with the Trial Court’s finding that Plaintiff had a duty to mitigate damages. The Court reasoned that a tenant’s duty to mitigate damages, in a breach of warranty of habitability case, does not apply if the landlord failed to comply with the statutory procedures set forth by D.C. Code § 42-3505.01(f)(1), which concerns the remediation of such breaches. The Court explained that D.C. Code § 42-3505.01(f)(1) was enacted as a protection for tenants to be relocated and ultimately returned to their housing after the completion of repairs related to the warranty of habitability. The Court found that it would be inconsistent with the statute’s purpose to allow for Plaintiff’s damages to be limited when Defendant failed to present evidence that it had complied with § 42-3505.01(f)(1). The Court remanded the case to the Trial Court so that it could recalculate the damages owed to Plaintiff.

Questions about this case can be directed to Marcelo Perez at (202) 945-9503 or mperez@tthlaw.com.