Catherine Hanrahan (Partner-Washington, DC) and Pernell “Perry” Choren (Associate-Washington, DC) obtained dismissal in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on behalf of a local government agency sued for allegations of negligence pertaining to the operation and management of a large residential property. The court’s primary focus was on the sufficiency of the plaintiff’s mandatory written notice of claim pursuant to D.C. Code § 6-205(a). In their Motion to Dismiss, Catherine and Perry argued that neither of the plaintiff’s alleged § 6-205 notices were submitted to the correct individual at the agency as set forth in the statute. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiff was too vague in describing the time that she was injured and the location of the alleged incident. The court initially granted the  Motion to Dismiss, but provided the plaintiff with the opportunity to file an Amended Complaint and further support how she was compliant with § 6-205. Catherine and Perry renewed their Motion to Dismiss, fully briefed by both parties, and the court held a remote motion hearing. In an oral ruling from the bench, the court found Catherine and Perry’s arguments persuasive and ruled that the plaintiff failed to produce evidence demonstrating that she timely provided the mandatory written notice of claim to the correct individual at the agency. Additionally, the court correctly ruled that actual notice by the agency is not a consideration in a § 6-205 analysis. Accordingly, the court granted the Motion to Dismiss.