Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)

Citation: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Parent Document: Clark v. Bridges, 75 A.3d 149 (2013)
Jurisdiction: DC (municipal)
Effective Date: 2013-08-22
Original Source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/5147069/clark-v-bridges/ ↗

Full Text

1,238 chars

Before we address the substantive merits of the landlord’s appellate contentions, we pause to review an earlier order deeming the appeal to have been timely filed. This court’s rules require that an appellant file a notice of appeal within the time period provided in D.C. Appellate Rule 4. The tenant filed a motion to dismiss the appeal, arguing that this Court does not have jurisdiction over an appeal that was not timely filed, (citing Circle Liquors, Inc. v. Cohen, 670 A.2d 381, 385 (D.C.1996)). The landlord had an opportunity to file a response to the tenant’s motion to dismiss, but did not do so. A Motions Division of this court denied the tenant’s motion to dismiss the landlord’s appeal. However, a Merits Division of this court is not bound by a Motions Division’s decision to deny a motion to dismiss an *151appeal, Jung v. Jung, 844 A.2d 1099, 1107 n. 8 (D.C.2004), unless the motion is denied with prejudice. District of Columbia v. Trs. of Amherst College, 499 A.2d 918, 920 (D.C.1985). The Motions Division order was not “with prejudice,” so we may reconsider its decision.1 We do so in order to highlight a change in court rules that may create a trap for the unwary civil litigant who wishes to file a timely appeal.

Other Sections in This Document (34)

Full Text