Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum

D.C. Circuit

Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum

CourtCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit

DecidedAugust 24, 2022

Docket22-7074

StatusUnpublished

This text of Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum (Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum, (D.C. Cir. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-7074 September Term, 2021 1:21-cv-02547-TJK Filed On: August 24, 2022 Ljubo Skrbic,

Appellant

v.

Board of La Renaissance Condominum,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the amended brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 18, 2022, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the denial of leave to file his post-dismissal document entitled “additional discoveries” was an abuse of discretion. See Berry v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1031, 1037 n.24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“A trial court’s decisions with respect to the management of its docket are normally entitled to deference.”). Additionally, appellant has provided no valid basis for default judgment or damages.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 22-7074 September Term, 2021 1:21-cv-02547-TJK Filed On: August 24, 2022 Ljubo Skrbic,

Appellant

v.

Board of La Renaissance Condominum,

Appellee

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Katsas and Rao, Circuit Judges, and Sentelle, Senior Circuit Judge

JUDGMENT

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the amended brief. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed April 18, 2022, be affirmed. Appellant has not shown that the denial of leave to file his post-dismissal document entitled “additional discoveries” was an abuse of discretion. See Berry v. District of Columbia, 833 F.2d 1031, 1037 n.24 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“A trial court’s decisions with respect to the management of its docket are normally entitled to deference.”). Additionally, appellant has provided no valid basis for default judgment or damages.

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41.

Per Curiam

FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk

BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Deputy Clerk

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ljubo Skrbic v. Board of La Renaissance Condominum, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ljubo-skrbic-v-board-of-la-renaissance-condominum-cadc-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack