News World Communications, Inc. v. Thompsen, No. 04-CV-346.
Citation | 878 A.2d 1218 |
Decision Date | 14 July 2005 |
Docket Number | No. 04-CV-346. |
Parties | NEWS WORLD COMMUNICATIONS, INC., Appellant, v. Elaine J.S. THOMPSEN, Appellee. |
Court | Court of Appeals of Columbia District |
Allen V. Farber, with whom James A. Barker, Jr., Washington, DC, was on the brief, for appellant.
Dale A. Cooter, Washington, DC, for appellee.
Before SCHWELB and GLICKMAN, Associate Judges, and BELSON, Senior Judge.
A jury awarded Elaine J.S. Thompsen $100,000 on her claim of unjust enrichment against News World Communications, Inc. (the Times), a corporation which publishes a daily newspaper known as The Washington Times. The Times filed a timely post-trial motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL) or, in the alternative, for a new trial, relying, inter alia, on a statute of limitations defense which it had asserted in pretrial motions and throughout the trial. On March 11, 2004, the trial judge denied the Times' post-trial motion. Judgment was entered on the verdict, and the Times appealed, again contending, inter alia, that Ms. Thompsen's claim was time-barred.
To decide this appeal, we must determine when the statute of limitations begins to run in a case of unjust enrichment. The issue is a novel and difficult one, and the parties have not provided us with, nor have we found, any applicable precedent in this jurisdiction. Although reasonable minds could differ as to the proper outcome, we follow the approach of courts in other jurisdictions which have addressed comparable issues, and which have held that the statute of limitations begins to run when the plaintiff's last service has been rendered and compensation has been wrongfully withheld. Applying this principle to the present record, we reverse.
According to Ms. Thompsen's complaint, which was filed on July 22, 1998, the events that gave rise to this action began in September 1994, when Ms. Thompsen met Janet Naylor, who was then a political reporter for the Times. Ms. Thompsen told Ms. Naylor that she had an idea for a family magazine for the Times. Ms. Naylor was receptive, and she put Ms. Thompsen in touch with Michael Mahr, the newspaper's Advertising Director. In October 1994, Mr. Mahr asked Ms. Thompsen to fax him her proposal, and on November 17, 1994, Ms. Thompsen did so.
On December 1, 1994, at Mr. Mahr's request, Ms. Thompsen faxed two proposed layouts to Mr. Mahr, one for the Family Times and one for the Kids Times. She followed up these submissions with "a marketing strategy and commercial ideas" for the proposed publications. On December 6, 2004, Mr. Mahr confirmed receipt and "indicated [that] he desired to go forward with Ms. Thompsen's proposals." Mr. Mahr explained that he would make some changes in his department "before the project could begin," but that this would be completed by Christmas.
Ms. Thompsen claims that the new supplement was similar to, and based upon, her ideas and work. She testified that shortly after April 4, 1995, she consulted legal counsel.
Following the dismissal of the first three counts of her initial complaint, Ms. Thompsen filed an amended complaint containing only two claims: 1. conversion; and 2. breach of quasi-contract. The Times filed a motion for summary judgment, again arguing, inter alia, that Ms. Thompsen's claims were barred by the three-year statute of limitations. In an order entered on January 13, 2000, the second motions judge (who was also the trial judge) rejected this contention as contrary to "the law of the case," and she reaffirmed that "the conversion and quasi-contract claims did not ripen until the defendant allegedly used the plaintiff's proposal by publishing the family supplement in June 1997."
The case proceeded to trial in May 2000. Ms. Thompsen testified generally, though with some variation,3 in accordance with the allegations of her complaint but added some details. Ms. Thompsen stated that Mr. Mahr wanted to meet with her to discuss this "new supplement," which was "your idea," and that the people at the Times were "actually working on it already." Thus, according to Ms. Thompsen, the Times' refusal to pay her came after the Times had began to use the fruits of her labor. As noted by the trial judge in her written order denying the Times' post-trial motion for JMOL, Ms. Thompsen also testified that her proposal conferred a benefit on the Times as soon as she presented it.
The trial judge dismissed the conversion claim at the close of the plaintiff's case. At various stages of the trial, counsel for the Times reiterated his position that the unjust enrichment claim was time-barred, but the judge disagreed, and she allowed that claim to go to the jury. The jury returned a verdict in Ms. Thompsen's favor in the amount of $100,000. On March 16, 2004, the trial judge denied the Times' post-trial motion for judgment as a matter of law or, in the alternative, for a new trial. This appeal followed.
Although the Times has also raised other alleged bases for reversal,4 the only issue that we must reach in order to resolve this case is whether the claim for unjust enrichment should have been dismissed as time-barred. Both trial judges concluded that the statute of limitations did not begin to run on this claim until June 1997, when the Times published its first edition of the Family Times, but neither judge cited any supporting case law. Ms. Thompsen's brief is likewise bereft of any relevant authority. As the trial judge recognized in her order of March 16, 2004, "what constitutes the accrual of a cause of action is a question of law," citing Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 108 F.Supp.2d 12, 15 (D.D.C.2000), and we therefore review de novo the trial court's resolution of this issue. We conclude that the statute of limitations began to run no later than April 4, 1995, when, according to Ms. Thompsen, the Times, having encouraged Ms. Thompsen's efforts, having received the benefit of her work and ideas, having expressed the intention to use her work product, and having already begun to utilize it, nevertheless informed her that she would not be compensated.
This court has had occasion to discuss the "unjust enrichment" theory of quasi-contract in a number of cases, most recently in Jordan Keys & Jessamy, LLP...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
E.M. v. Shady Grove Reprod. Sci. Ctr. P.C.
...circumstances, the defendant's retention of the benefit is unjust." In re APA , 766 F.3d at 45–46 (quoting New World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Thompsen , 878 A.2d 1218, 1222 (D.C. 2005) ). Like promissory estoppel, it is a theory of quasi-contract. Thompsen , 878 A.2d at 1222. E.M.’s theory of unju......
-
Intelect Corp. v. Cellco P'ship GP, Civil Action No.: 15-0902 (RC)
...and (3) under the circumstances, the defendant's retention of the benefit is unjust.’ ” Id. at 112 (quoting News World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Thompsen , 878 A.2d 1218, 1222 (D.C.2005) ); see also Bloomgarden , 479 F.2d at 210 (“For the purpose of preventing unjust enrichment, however, a quasi-co......
-
United States v. Honeywell Int'l Inc.
...retains the benefit; and (3) under the circumstances, the defendant's retention of the benefit is unjust." News World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218, 1222 (D.C. 2005). Honeywell argues that regardless of the Court's conclusions with respect to the False Claims Act, it is entitled......
-
Campbell v. Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. of Pittsburgh, PA
...Fort Lincoln Civic Ass'n, Inc. v. Fort Lincoln New Town Corp., 944 A.2d 1055, 1076 (D.C.2008) (quoting News World Commc'ns, Inc. v. Thompsen, 878 A.2d 1218, 1222 (D.C.2005) ). "In such a case, the recipient of the benefit has a duty to make restitution to the other person...." 4934, Inc. v.......