Ljubo Skrbic v. Philip Somers

• Court: Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
• Decided: December 18, 2024
• Docket: 24-7012
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT ____________ No. 24-7012 September Term, 2024 1:21-cv-01903-RCL Filed On: December 18, 2024 Ljubo Skrbic,

Appellant

v.

Philip Somers, et al.,

Appellees

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

BEFORE: Wilkins, Pan, and Garcia, Circuit Judges

JUDGMENT

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

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s January 9, 2024 order denying reconsideration be affirmed. The district court correctly concluded that it lacked diversity jurisdiction because appellant and three of the appellees are all citizens of Florida. See, e.g., In re Lorazepam & Clorazepate Antitrust Litig., 631 F.3d 537, 541 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (“[D]iversity jurisdiction does not exist unless each defendant is a citizen of a different state from each plaintiff.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Consequently, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying appellant’s second motion for reconsideration. See Morrissey v. Mayorkas, 17 F.4th 1150, 1162 (D.C. Cir. 2021).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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