2026-09-09 · District of Columbia · Courts

A federal judge has declined to freeze a District of Columbia condominium board's daily fines and legal-expense special assessment while a discrimination suit against the board proceeds. The ruling is about the timing of judicial intervention, and the answer it gives is: later than owners expect.

14PNWDC LLC v. Zapata-Mercado, No. 26-cv-1342 (LLA), was decided by Judge Alikhan of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on June 8, 2026.¹

What was at stake

Investor limited liability companies owning several units at the P Street Flats Condominium at 14 P Street NW sued three board and association members under the Fair Housing Act and the DC Human Rights Act, alleging selective rule enforcement and discriminatory remarks about their owner's race and age.

The financial pressure was substantial. The board had imposed fines of $200 per unit per day across four units — roughly $24,000 a month — for failure to produce unredacted leases, plus a $10,000 special assessment for legal expenses spread across all units. The plaintiffs sought an emergency temporary restraining order.

Why the court said no

On irreparable harm: “These fines, while substantial, are plainly compensable, and Plaintiffs do not explain how these financial injuries would cause them irreparable harm.”

The court held that anticipated liens, foreclosure steps and collection referrals were neither certain nor imminent, distinguishing a case in which a restraining order issued where a foreclosure sale was set for the following day. It also declined to bar two conflicted board members from participating in association actions relating to the suit.

The order is interlocutory. The merits litigation continues.

1. 14PNWDC LLC v. Zapata-Mercado, No. 26-cv-1342 (LLA) (D.D.C. June 8, 2026) — memorandum opinion and order denying a temporary restraining order ↩