Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 1 of 11

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

MOHAMED MEDHI ZORGANI and )

SOUKAINA LAASIRI, )
)
Plaintiffs, )
)
v. ) 17 cv 2360
Case No. ______
)
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, )
)
DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, an )
Agency of the District of Columbia, and )
)
JOHN and JANE DOES 1-10, Employees )
of the District of Columbia and/or the )
Department of Motor Vehicles, )
)
Defendants. )

COMPLAINT

PLAINTIFFS, Mohamed Mehdi Zorgani and Soukaina Laasiri, bring this action against

Defendants, the District of Columbia (the District), the District of Columbia Department of

Motor Vehicles (DMV), and unknown employees of the District and the DMV, John and Jane

Does 1-10. In support of their complaint, Plaintiffs state as follows:

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Jurisdiction in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 to 28 U.S.C. 1331 (federal

question). Venue in this Court is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391 (b)(2) in that the events

giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in the District of Columbia.

PARTIES

2. Plaintiffs Mohamed Mehdi Zorgani and Soukaina Laasiri are married individuals

1
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 2 of 11

and at all times relevant hereto were residents of the District of Columbia. Mr. Zorgani is a

licensed driver with a drivers license issued by the District of Columbias Department of Motor

Vehicles. At all times relevant hereto, Mr. Zorganis drivers license was in good standing

without any suspensions or other impairments.

3. The District of Columbia controlled and operated the Division of Motor Vehicles

at all times relevant to this case.

4. The District of Columbia Department of Motor Vehicles is an agency of the

District of Columbia. Defendants John and Jane Does 1-10 are employees of the District of

Columbia and/or Department of Motor Vehicles who are as yet unidentified but who carried out

the acts complained of herein.

STATEMENT OF FACTS

5. On May 24, 2014, Plaintiff Mehdi Zorgani (Zorgani) received a traffic ticket for

failure to yield the right of way. The ticket was for $100.00. On July 30, 2014, Mr. Zorgani paid

the ticket plus a $100.00 fine for late payment. At that time Mr. Zorganis operators license was

not suspended or impaired in any way.

6. After the ticket was paid on July 30, 2014, Defendants never notified Mr. Zorgani

that there was any problem with his license.

7. On August 21, 2014, Defendants suspended Mr. Zorganis drivers license in their

database and forwarded that information to the Metropolitan Police Department.

8. Defendants never provided Mr. Zorgani any notice that his license had been

suspended and never provided Mr. Zorgani with any process by which to rectify the suspension.

9. There was no legitimate basis for Defendants to suspend Mr. Zorganis drivers

license in August 2014.

2
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 3 of 11

10. Mr. Zorgani had no reason to believe that Defendants had suspended his license in

August 2014.

11. On November 8, 2014, Mr. Zorgani was driving home from work at

approximately 12:15 a.m. At 12:19 a.m. Mr. Zorgani was stopped by Officer Parrish of the

Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for making a left turn at or near 1800 Columbia Road

NW, Washington, DC.

12. At that time, Officer Parrish queried Mr. Zorganis D.C. drivers license

through the Third District Dispatcher.

13. The result of the query indicated that Mr. Zorganis license had been suspended

by the District of Columbia.

14. Mr. Zorgani was then placed under arrest, without incident, for operation after

suspension. Mr. Zorgani was transported to the Third District police station for processing and

was held in jail overnight. He was released on the morning of November 8, 2014.

15. Prior to November 8, 2014, Mr. Zorgani never received notice that his license had

been suspended nor notice of any process to reinstate his license.

16. When Mr. Zorgani was released from jail on November 8, 2014, he went to the

DMV to determine why the Defendants had reported to the police that his license had been

suspended. The clerk stated that Mr. Zorganis license had not been suspended and that

notification to that effect was sent [] in error. The clerk provided a letter to Mr. Zorgani

repeating this and apologizing for the inconvenience resulting from this error. A copy of the

letter is attached as Exhibit A and incorporated into the factual basis for this complaint.

17. As a result of the actions of Defendants, Mr. Zorgani was wrongfully arrested and

detained, and suffered damages including severe emotional distress, embarrassment, pain and
3
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 4 of 11

suffering, criminal charges with associated expenses, a criminal record and he has otherwise

been damaged.

18. Mr. Zorganis wife, Plaintiff Soukaina Laasiri, had no knowledge of her

husbands whereabouts the night of November 8, 2014 and experienced severe emotional

distress as a result.

19. On March 23, 2015, Plaintiffs provided Defendants with a Notice of Claim

pursuant to D.C. Code section 12-309, receipt of which was acknowledged by Defendants.

COUNT I

(Negligence)

20. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference,

herein.

21. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care to only

suspend drivers licenses in accordance with District of Columbia statutes and regulations.

22. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care to notify

drivers of the fact of a license suspension and the steps necessary to reinstate the license.

23. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants had a duty to use ordinary care in

accurately notifying the Metropolitan Police Department about license suspensions.

24. Notwithstanding these duties, Defendants failed to use ordinary care in the

following ways:

a) Incorrectly informing the MPD that Mr. Zorganis license was suspended when it

was not;

b) Suspending Mr. Zorganis license after he had satisfied all requirements regarding

his May, 2014 ticket without giving Mr. Zorgani notice or opportunity for a
4
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 5 of 11

hearing;

c) Failing to notify Mr. Zorgani that his license was suspended in August 2014;

d) Failing to notify Mr. Zorgani of the steps necessary to reinstate his license in

August 2014; and

e) Accepting Mr. Zorganis payment of his fine in July 2014, without any notice that

his license would be suspended in the future.

f) Failing to follow the procedures in Title 18 of the DC Municipal Regulations,

including 18 DCMR 305.3, 307.3, 307.4, 308.1, and 1005.

25. Mr. Zorgani had direct and continuing contact with Defendants due to his traffic

infraction in May, 2014 and subsequent contact with Defendants to satisfy his obligation.

26. Mr. Zorgani was justified in relying upon Defendants representation, in the form

of DMV accepting his payment in full for his past ticket and fine and DMVs subsequent failure

to notify Mr. Zorgani about a suspension as the DMV is required to do under Title 18 of the D.C.

Municipal Regulations.

27. Due to the direct and continuing contact between Mr. Zorgani and the DMV and

Mr. Zorganis justifiable reliance on the DMV, Defendants owed Mr. Zorgani a special duty of

care beyond that owed to the general public.

28. Defendants knew or should have known that their failure to exercise appropriate

care in ensuring the accuracy of the information released to the MPD would directly and

proximately cause Plaintiffs injuries.

29. The defendants breached their duty of care to plaintiffs, and as a direct and

proximate result of their negligence, plaintiffs suffered severe and substantial damages as

aforesaid.
5
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 6 of 11

COUNT II

(Violation of Statute)

30. The previous paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference herein.

31. Defendants conduct as described herein constitutes a violation of numerous

District of Columbia statutes including but not limited to Title 18 of the DC Municipal

Regulations, Vehicles and Traffic.

32. Defendants violated Title 18 of the DCMR by, among other things:

a) failing to provide Plaintiff with notice of the suspension setting forth the

proposed action and the grounds for the proposed action as required by 18 DCMR

307.3;

b) failing to require that Plaintiffs drivers license be surrendered to and retained by

the Department of Motor Vehicles following suspension of Plaintiffs drivers

license in August 2014 as required by 18 DCMR 305.3;

c) failing to provide Plaintiff with a notice of suspension allowing 10 days before it

was to take effect as required by 18 DCMR 307.4;

d) failing to serve Plaintiff at the time of his arrest with a notice of suspension from

the Director of the DMV as required by 18 DCMR 308:1; and

e) failing to provide Plaintiff with an opportunity for a hearing prior to suspension

of his license as required by 18 DCMR 1005, et. seq.

33. The aforementioned statutes were enacted to protect individuals property interest

in their drivers license. Mr. Zorgani belongs to the class of persons for whose benefit and

protection these statutes were enacted, and the injuries he suffered were of the type against which

these statutes were designed to protect.

6
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 7 of 11

34. The aforementioned damages suffered by Mr. Zorgani were a direct and

proximate result of the statutory violations mentioned herein.

COUNT III

(Deprivation of Civil Rights Under 42 USC 1983)

35. All of the preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference,

herein.

36. Mr. Zorgani has a significant property interest in his drivers license, which is

critical to his ability to conduct his business, care for his family, and other important matters.

37. Defendants did not provide Mr. Zorgani with any notice, process or opportunity

for a hearing prior to entering a suspension of his license into their database in August 2014 and

suspending his license on August 21, 2014.

38. Defendants did not provide Mr. Zorgani with any notice, process or opportunity

for a hearing prior to notifying the Metropolitan Police Department that Mr. Zorganis license

was suspended.

39. Upon information and belief, Defendants suspension of Mr. Zorganis license

was done pursuant to a policy and custom of the District of Columbia of suspending drivers

licenses after individuals pay their ticket but without notice or opportunity for a hearing.

40. Defendants failure to provide Mr. Zorgani and other similarly situated

individuals with a hearing or adequate pre-deprivation process was a violation of their procedural

due process rights under the Fifth Amendment, for which Defendants are liable for damages. No

post-deprivation process was adequate to protect the rights of Mr. Zorgani.

41. Defendants knew that suspending Mr. Zorganis drivers license without notice or

an opportunity for a hearing created a high risk that Mr. Zorgani would be erroneously deprived
7
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 8 of 11

of his drivers license and subject to an unlawful arrest and detention, thereby violating his

constitutional rights.

42. Defendants have no important interest in suspending drivers licenses without

notice and an opportunity for a hearing.

43. Upon information and belief, individuals with policy making authority for

the District of Columbia and the Department of Motor Vehicles for the District of Columbia

tacitly approved of or ratified the actions of lower ranking officials of the District of Columbia

and DMV in suspending drivers licenses of individuals including Mr. Zorgani after the payment

of fines and without notice and/or opportunity for a hearing. Such conduct by policy makers

amounts to an unconsitutional policy or custom of the District and the DMV, for which the

District is liable.

44. All the conduct of the Defendants described herein was under color of the

statutes, ordinances, regulations, customs and usages of the District.

45. As a direct result of the actions and policies of the Defendants as described

herein, Mr. Zorgani suffered an unconstitutional deprivation of liberty and property in violation

of his rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

46. As a direct result of the actions and policies of the Defendants violation of

Mehdi Zorganis constitutional rights as described herein, Mr. Zorgani has suffered severe and

substantial damages, including but not limited to wrongful arrest and imprisonment; physical

pain and mental anguish, past, present and that which he may reasonably expect to suffer in the

future; and inconvenience, past, present and that which he may reasonably expect to suffer in the

future; and Mr. Zorgani has otherwise been damaged.

8
 Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 9 of 11

COUNT IV

(Loss of Consortium)

47. The preceding paragraphs are realleged and incorporated by reference, herein.

48. As the further direct and proximate result of the aforesaid acts and statutory

violations, Plaintiffs Mehdi Zorgani and Soukaina Laasiri have suffered loss of companionship

and society with their respective spouse, including the emotional pain and anguish related

thereto.

49. Plaintiffs injuries were directly caused by the negligence of Defendants as

aforesaid.

50. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend these pleadings as necessitated by discovery.

JURY DEMAND

51. Plaintiffs request trial by jury of all issues.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs Mohamed Zorgani and Soukaina Laasiri respectfully request

the following relief:

1. Compensatory damages in the amount of $1,500,000 for the injuries sustained as a

result of the actions of Defendants;

2. Attorneys fees, litigation expenses and costs; and

3. Such other relief as the Court deems appropriate.

Respectfully submitted,

Mohamed Mehdi Zorgani

Soukaina Laasiri
By Counsel

S/____________________________
Harvey S. Williams (D.C. Bar No. 437147)
9
Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 10 of 11

Williams Legal Group

2141 Wisconsin Ave. NW
Ste. N3
Washington, D.C. 20007
PH: (202) 462-5900
FX: (202) 462-5904
[email protected]

Counsel for Plaintiffs

10
Case 1:17-cv-02360 Document 1 Filed 11/08/17 Page 11 of 11

Exhibit A