Remus Enterprises 1, LLC v. Breece

── Remus Enterprises 1, LLC v. Breece ── Court: District of Columbia Court of Appeals Date: April 30, 2026 Category: General Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 24-CV-1151 REMUS ENTERPRISES 1, LLC, APPELLANT, V. QUINN BREECE, APPELLEE. Appeal from the Superior Court of the District of Columbia (2024-CAB-001702) (Hon. Yvonne M. Williams, Motions Judge) (Argued March 18, 2026 Decided April 30, 2026) Solon Phillips for appellant. Jude E. Wikramanayake for appellee. Before EASTERLY and SHANKER, Associate Judges, and RUIZ, Senior Judge. SHANKER, Associate Judge: Punctuation matters. At the heart of this case is the placement of a comma. Appellant Remus Enterprises 1, LLC (“Remus 2023”) sued appellee Quinn Breece in Superior Court asserting tort claims arising out of Remus 2023’s alleged ownership of, and desire to sell, a parcel of property located at 3308 16th Street, NE, in Washington, D.C. But a consent judgment in another case established that a different entity with a name containing all the same words  2 and letters but a differently placed comma—Remus Enterprises, 1 LLC (“Remus 2018”)—was the real owner of the property. Because Remus 2023 does not have standing to sue based on a different entity’s property interest, we conclude that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over the case, and we affirm the trial court’s dismissal of Remus 2023’s complaint, although on grounds different from those relied on by the trial court. I. Background A. Trial Court Proceedings In March 2024, Remus 2023 sued Ms. Breece for her alleged interference with the attempted sale of 3308 16th Street, NE, a parcel of property in the District of Columbia. Remus 2023 alleged that it purchased the 16th Street property in February 2023 “as an investment property, with the intentions of renovating and reselling” it. The complaint further alleged that Remus 2023 “entered into [a] listing agreement with a realtor in the District” who “listed the Property for $1,350,00.00,” and that there was a “Buyer who ha[d] contracted to purchase the Property.” Paragraph 14 of the complaint, however, alleged that an entity with a comma in a different place in its name, “Remus Enterprises, 1 LLC owns the subject property and the subject property has not been transferred to any other entity.”  3 In its complaint, Remus 2023 alleged that Ms. Breece filed a lawsuit on behalf of Yoni Nasi—not a party to this appeal—who purported to have an interest in the 16th Street property by virtue of his partial “owner[ship]” of the LLC that owned the property. Remus 2023 asserted that Mr. Nasi did not hold and had never held such an interest. The complaint alleged that six months after Remus 2023 allegedly purchased the property, Ms. Breece filed a notice of lis pendens in D.C. containing information about Mr. Nasi’s lawsuit. In February 2024, Ms. Breece purportedly canceled this first notice of lis pendens after receiving a letter from Remus 2023 demanding that she do so. The next day, the complaint alleged, she filed another notice of lis pendens based on a new underlying lawsuit. Remus 2023 contended that Ms. Breece filed this notice of lis pendens to interfere with the listing and sale of the 16th Street property. The complaint brought two causes of action: slander of title and tortious interference with contract. Ms. Breece moved