## Facts

- Gregory and Crystal Rogers (the tenants) rented residential property from Natalie Jackson (the landlord) in the District of Columbia.
- A dispute arose concerning the tenants’ payment of rent and the condition of the premises.
- The landlord filed an action in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia seeking possession of the property and back rent.
- The tenants defended against the possession claim and asserted counterclaims, alleging that the landlord’s suit was retaliatory and that housing-code or maintenance problems affected their obligations and remedies.
- During the Superior Court proceedings, the court enforced pretrial deadlines and excluded certain tenant evidence (including a late-disclosed witness) as untimely.
- After trial, the Superior Court entered judgment for the landlord for possession and back rent, rejecting the tenants’ defenses and counterclaims.
- The tenants appealed to the District of Columbia Court of Appeals.

## Issues

1. Did the tenants present sufficient evidence to establish a retaliatory-eviction defense (or claim) against the landlord’s suit for possession and back rent?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion by excluding tenant evidence that was disclosed after applicable deadlines?

## Decision

- The District of Columbia Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for the landlord.
- The court held that the tenants failed to make the required evidentiary showing to support retaliatory eviction.
- The court also held that the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding untimely disclosed evidence under its case-management and scheduling authority.

## Legal Principles

- Appellate review generally defers to the trial court’s factfinding unless clearly wrong, while evidentiary and case-management rulings (including enforcement of scheduling orders) are reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- A tenant asserting retaliatory eviction must make a prima facie showing that the landlord’s adverse action was motivated by the tenant’s protected activity (such as making housing-code complaints); conclusory allegations are not enough.
- When the tenant does not produce evidence linking protected activity to the landlord’s decision to seek possession, the retaliation defense fails.
- Trial courts have broad authority to manage litigation through scheduling orders and to exclude witnesses or exhibits disclosed late, especially when the party offers no adequate reason for the delay and the late disclosure would prejudice orderly trial preparation.
- Claims or defenses based on housing conditions require competent proof of the conditions and their legal effect; a party cannot rely on speculation or unsupported assertions to defeat a claim for possession or rent.

## Conclusion

Rogers v. Jackson holds that tenants resisting a landlord’s possession and rent claim must present concrete evidence connecting protected tenant activity to the landlord’s decision to sue in order to succeed on a retaliatory-eviction theory, and it confirms that Superior Court judges may enforce scheduling deadlines by excluding late-disclosed evidence absent a showing that such enforcement was an abuse of discretion.


Rogers v. Jackson, 804 A.2d 379 (2002)