I. RULE 5.5 - LACK OF CLAIM
1. Plaintiff's
Fact 3 alleges citizens
"have been unfairly and unequally removed from realtor-only auctions" but provides no evidence that professional qualification requirements constitute "
unfair discrimination" under constitutional law. The complaint fails to distinguish between lawful professional requirements and unlawful discrimination.
2. In
totemundying v. Town of Aventura [2024] DCR 40, the District Court established that "
every citizen is entitled to equal protection and benefit therefore if an auction is open to the public [...], they must allow all citizen to bid unless prescribed by reasonable limitation." The court explicitly held that "
[...] guidelines are a reasonable limitation as how almost identical guidelines in DCT and DOC auctions are also reasonable limitations."
3. Plaintiff's
Fact 5 acknowledges the DCT Deputy Secretary correctly informed him the auction is "
for people who are already realtor" - demonstrating this is a clear professional qualification requirement, not arbitrary exclusion.
4.
[2024] DCR 40 found a constitutional violation only because "
Due to the plaintiff not violating the Guidelines, the limitation given to him is not reasonable and therefore unconstitutional." Here, the Plaintiff acknowledges he does not meet the realtor qualification (
Facts 4-5) but provides no evidence that the qualification itself is unreasonable.
5. Federal Court precedent establishes that
Rule 5.5 requires evidence of alleged harm to be presented at the complaint stage, not during trial. In
CrackedAmoeba1 v. JoanM999 [2024] FCR 35, the Federal Court dismissed a defamation case under
Rule 5.5, holding: "
no proof was shown that there the actions did in fact harm their reputation. While this could yes be proven later on within the trial, if its not presented at the start where the evidence of the alleged slander has been presented, I am to assume there was no harm done to the reputation." The court emphasized that "
the law defines slander as harm needing to be done to then pursue damages" and concluded that "
lack of presentable harm" defeats the entire claim under
Rule 5.5.
6. Applying this evidentiary standard to constitutional claims, Plaintiff presents no evidence at the complaint stage demonstrating that professional qualification requirements for auctions constitute unconstitutional discrimination. Like the Plaintiff in
[2024] FCR 35 who failed to show the required reputational harm for defamation, Plaintiff here fails to show the required constitutional harm from DCT's policy. Under the
[2024] FCR 35 standard, this evidentiary failure at the outset defeats the claim under
Rule 5.5.
7. The causal connection between DCT's auction policy and Plaintiff's alleged constitutional injury is legally insufficient. Plaintiff's
Fact 4 establishes that "
Citizens who are not realtors have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to exam closure by the Department of Education (Exhibits
P-003,
P-004). This admission demonstrates that DCT's auction policy is not the proximate cause of Plaintiff's exclusion from realtor-only auctions.
8. The Department of Education's independent decision to close realtor examinations constitutes an intervening cause that breaks the causal chain between DCT's policy and any alleged harm. Even if DCT's auction policy were eliminated entirely, Plaintiff would remain unable to participate in realtor-only auctions because the DOE - a separate government entity with independent authority - has made realtor certification impossible. The constitutional injury Plaintiff alleges (exclusion based on professional qualification) flows directly from DOE's examination closure, not from DCT's policy requiring existing qualifications.
9. This causal defect is fatal to the constitutional claim. Courts cannot hold the DCT liable for constitutional violations when the alleged harm stems from another agency's independent exercise of regulatory authority. To permit such claims would create perverse incentives, allowing plaintiffs to forum-shop and hold one department liable for another's policy decisions. The law requires a direct causal connection between the defendant's conduct and the alleged constitutional injury - a connection that DOE's examination closure definitively severs.
II. RULE 5.11 - IMMUNITY PROTECTION
10. Under the
Property Standards Act,
Section 4(1), the DCT "
shall retain jurisdiction to establish regulations outside of this law" regarding property matters. This statutory delegation creates immunity when the DCT exercises this express regulatory authority.
11. The
Realtor Benefit Resolution,
Section 3(2), grants the DCT statutory authority over realtor licensing: "
The Realtor License may be revoked by the DCT for misuse of the Realtor license." This delegation creates immunity for DCT actions regarding realtor-related policies.
12.
[2024] DCR 40 explicitly held that "
Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable" and established that authorities have broad discretion to establish reasonable limitations, stating: "
As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions [...] and courts time and time again have enforced them, I must do the same for Aventura's Guidelines as they are under the same laws."
13. The DCT's official
Eviction Auction Policy expressly establishes "
Realtor-only Auctions" where "
Only those with the Realtor profession will be allowed to participate." The DCT auction guidelines reserve the right to "
restrict individuals' ability to participate within this service." This express reservation, similar to those recognised in
[2024] DCR 40 as enforceable, creates statutory immunity for participant restriction decisions made within delegated authority.
III. RULE 5.12 - LACK OF PERSONAL JURISDICTION
14. Under
Rule 2.1, to pursue this case Plaintiff must prove:
(a) suffered some injury caused by a clear second party,
(b) the cause of injury was against the law, and
(c) remedy is applicable under relevant law that can be granted by a favorable decision. Plaintiff meets element
(a) but fails elements
(b) and
(c), defeating standing.
15.
Element (a) - Plaintiff suffers injury (exclusion from auctions) caused by the DCT's realtor-only auction policy. This element is satisfied.
16.
Element (b) - The cause of Plaintiff's injury is the DCT's lawful exercise of express policy authority. The DCT's official
Eviction Auction Policy explicitly establishes "
Realtor-only Auctions" where "
Only those with the Realtor profession will be allowed to participate." The DCT reserves authority to "
restrict individuals ability to participate within this service." This is a lawful exercise of delegated governmental authority, not conduct "against the law."
17. In
[2024] DCR 40, the District Court held that "
Aventura's Auction Guidelines are enforceable" because "
As the DCT and DOC have almost identical guidelines for auctions in the DC discord and courts time and time again have enforced them." The court recognised that auction participation restrictions are lawful exercises of governmental authority, not violations of law.
18.
Element (c) - Plaintiff seeks to compel the DCT to abandon its realtor-only auction policy, but no applicable legal remedy exists. Courts can only compel government agencies to perform acts they are legally obligated to do - here, no law requires the DCT to abandon its policy. Courts can also issue orders to enforce the rights of others - but under
[2024] DCR 40, professional qualification requirements for auctions are "
reasonable limitations" that are constitutional. Plaintiff has no legal right to participate in realtor-only auctions that a court could enforce. The law expressly authorises the DCT's policy rather than prohibiting it.
19. Even if elements
(b) and
(c) could be satisfied, Plaintiff's injury remains speculative. Plaintiff's
Fact 4 acknowledges they "
have no way of becoming realtors at this time" due to exam closure. Any remedy depends on: (1) exams reopening, (2) Plaintiff passing the exam, and (3) obtaining realtor certification. These speculative future events cannot satisfy the concrete injury requirement for standing.
20. In
AmityBlamity v. Department of Homeland Security [2025] DCR 3, the Plaintiff challenged DHS employment requirements as causing emotional distress. The court dismissed under
Rule 2.1, holding that "
while the plaintiff may have experienced emotional damages, that injury was not against the law because the claim was based solely on the speech of the announcement." The court emphasised that allowing the case would "
jeopardize a core constitutional right" since DHS was exercising lawful authority. Critically, the court noted that if there were "
actions connected to this speech" like "
a denied application," standing might exist, but since Plaintiff was "
only claiming damages on the speech, the injury is not against the law."
21. In
YeetGlazer v. Commonwealth of Redmont [2025] FCR 34, the Plaintiff challenged DOC's premature auction termination. The court dismissed for lack of standing under
Rule 2.1 because Plaintiff "
did not allege a violation of law." The court distinguished between policy challenges and legal violations: "
The only alleged breach concerns internal department policy, and even then, the Department's own rules expressly permit it to terminate auctions at any time." The court concluded: "
Without a legal basis and without outrageous conduct, there is simply nothing for this Court to act upon."
22. Like
[2025] DCR 3, Plaintiff here challenges lawful government policy (realtor-only auctions) rather than illegal conduct. Like
[2025] FCR 34, Plaintiff alleges only "
internal department policy" violations when the DCT's own rules expressly permit restricting participation. Both precedents establish that challenging the lawful exercise of government authority fails
Rule 2.1's "
against the law" requirement. Plaintiff's injury flows from DCT's authorised policy implementation, not from any violation of law.
For the foregoing reasons, the Defence respectfully moves that the complaint be dismissed in its entirety under:
Rule 5.5 – for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, as Plaintiff has not demonstrated any unconstitutional harm nor presented evidence that DCT’s auction policies constitute unlawful discrimination;
Rule 5.11 – due to the DCT’s immunity from liability when acting under express statutory authority in regulating property and realtor-related matters;
Rule 5.12 – for lack of personal jurisdiction, as the Plaintiff fails to show that DCT’s lawful policy, rather than the Department of Education’s independent certification freeze, caused any redressable constitutional injury.
The Plaintiff challenges a lawful and reasonable qualification requirement, not an unconstitutional act. The harm alleged is speculative and disconnected from DCT’s conduct. Precedent clearly supports the dismissal of complaints where no legal violation or presentable harm exists at the pleading stage.
Accordingly, the Defence respectfully requests that this Court grant the motion to dismiss
with prejudice, dissolve the Emergency Injunction, and deny the Plaintiff any further relief.
