## Facts

- The District authorized installation of an automated red-light camera at the H Street N.E. bridge area; Lockheed Martin, Inc. contracted to install and operate it.
- Donald Kovach received a ticket based on a camera image, admitted liability, and paid the fine.
- The camera was installed in August 1999 and removed in mid-May 2000 after police concluded it was producing an unusually high number of citations and confusing motorists.
- By removal, about 20,000 motorists had been ticketed, totaling about $1.5 million in fines.
- The District agreed to dismiss outstanding (unpaid) fines for about 3,000 motorists whose tickets remained unpaid at removal, but did not refund fines already paid.
- Kovach later sued the District and Lockheed seeking refunds of previously paid fines for himself and others, plus costs, interest, and attorney’s fees.
- He alleged the signal’s cycle was defective (including a transition from flashing yellow to steady yellow before red), that the setup “entrapped” motorists, and that forgiving only unpaid fines while retaining paid fines was discriminatory and unconstitutional.

## Issues

1. Whether Kovach’s claims were barred by res judicata based on the prior traffic adjudication resolved by his admission of liability and payment.
2. Whether collateral estoppel barred Kovach from alleging facts (confusion/“entrapment”) necessary to state his statutory and constitutional claims challenging the District’s selective dismissal policy.

## Decision

- The appellate court rejected the trial court’s stated basis for dismissal, holding res judicata did not bar the suit as framed.
- The court nevertheless affirmed dismissal because collateral estoppel applied.
- Kovach’s prior admission and resulting adjudication of liability precluded him from later alleging he was confused or “entrapped” in a way that negated or undermined that liability.
- Because the estopped facts were necessary to plead that he was similarly situated to motorists whose unpaid tickets were dismissed, the complaint failed to state a claim.

## Legal Principles

- Res judicata (claim preclusion) and collateral estoppel (issue preclusion) are distinct; an appellate court may affirm a dismissal on any ground supported by the record.
- A prior adjudication of traffic liability based on a party’s admission can conclusively determine factual issues tied to that liability in later civil litigation.
- Collateral estoppel bars a plaintiff from pleading or litigating factual premises that contradict an earlier determination, when those premises are necessary elements of the later claim.
- Preclusion doctrines may yield in limited circumstances, but a late challenge following an admission of liability will be barred absent a showing such as manifest error or comparable unfairness sufficient to avoid issue preclusion.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed dismissal because Kovach’s admission of liability and payment of the red-light ticket collaterally estopped him from alleging confusion or “entrapment” as the factual predicate for claims seeking refunds and attacking the District’s decision to forgive only unpaid fines.


Kovach v. District of Columbia, 805 A.2d 957 (D.C. 2002)