A District of Columbia court has denied a motion for reconsideration from Star Dehaarte, who filed a lawsuit against the District of Columbia. The case involves claims of negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The ruling affects Dehaarte's ability to pursue these claims further, particularly regarding unliquidated damages.
Star Dehaarte, who is representing herself in this case, initially filed her lawsuit in April 2025 after an incident on January 8, 2025. Dehaarte claims she slipped on ice outside a school building where she worked, resulting in a severe concussion. Following the incident, she reported her injury to Principal Shawna Dix and sought medical leave. However, she alleges that Dix did not handle the situation properly and publicly questioned the legitimacy of her injury.
The District of Columbia, as the defendant, moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Dehaarte failed to provide the necessary notice of her claims as required by D.C. Code § 12-309. This statute mandates that individuals must notify the Mayor of the District of Columbia about any claims for unliquidated damages within six months of the incident. The court agreed with the District's argument and ruled that Dehaarte could only pursue her claims for equitable relief and liquidated damages.
After the court's initial ruling, Dehaarte filed a motion for reconsideration, introducing two emails she claimed were evidence of her compliance with the notice requirement. These emails were notifications from an incident reporting service regarding her injury. However, the District opposed this motion, arguing that the emails did not constitute new evidence and did not meet the statutory requirements.
Magistrate Judge G. Michael Harvey presided over the case and ruled on the motion for reconsideration. The judge stated, "The evidence Plaintiff provides is not 'new evidence not previously available.'" The court emphasized that the emails did not satisfy the notice requirement of D.C. Code § 12-309, which necessitates that the notice must include the approximate time, place, cause, and circumstances of the injury.
Furthermore, the court noted that Dehaarte's reports to the incident reporting service lacked sufficient detail to inform the District of the nature of her claims. The judge explained that the reports only mentioned the slip and fall incident but did not address the actions of Principal Dix, which were central to Dehaarte's claims of negligent supervision and emotional distress.
The court also pointed out that a report from the D.C. Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department would not fulfill the notice requirement, as the statute only recognizes reports from the Metropolitan Police Department as valid notice. Judge Harvey concluded that Dehaarte's motion for reconsideration was both procedurally and substantively deficient.
This ruling means that Dehaarte's claims for negligent supervision and intentional infliction of emotional distress will continue only to the extent that she seeks equitable relief and liquidated damages. The court's decision reinforces the strict interpretation of the notice requirement under D.C. law, which aims to protect the District from unsubstantiated claims and allows for timely investigations.
Moving forward, the outcome of this case may influence how similar claims are handled in the District of Columbia. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements when filing claims against government entities. Dehaarte's case highlights the challenges individuals may face when navigating the legal system without legal representation.
As of now, it is unclear whether Dehaarte plans to appeal the court's decision. The court filing did not indicate any related cases pending that could impact this matter.