Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07073/USCOURTS-caDC-15-07073-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 190
Nature of Suit: Other Contract Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-7073 September Term, 2015

1:03-cv-02507-ABJ

Filed On: September 8, 2016

Timothy D. Naegele,

Appellant

v.

Deanna J. Albers, et al.,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Tatel, Srinivasan, and Millett, Circuit Judges

J U D G M E N T

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court

for the District of Columbia and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.

34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court's June 23, 2015 order be

affirmed for the reasons well-stated in that court's memorandum opinion. The feerelated claims against the Alberses contained in Counts I-VI of the second amended

complaint were properly dismissed on res judicata grounds in view of the decision of the

California Court of Appeals in Albers v. Naegele, No. B240455, 2013 WL 5945676 (Cal.

Ct. App. Nov. 6, 2013). And the district court properly determined that it lacked

personal jurisdiction over Lloyd Michaelson. See Counts V, VII-XIII. So, too, did the

district court properly determine that there were insufficient contacts for it to exercise

personal jurisdiction over the Alberses with respect to Counts IX-XIII. Finally, because

appellant no longer argues that the counts against the "Doe" defendants, see Counts V,

VII-XIII, were improperly dismissed for failure to state a claim, he has forfeited those

claims. See U.S. ex rel. Totten v. Bombardier Corp., 380 F.3d 488, 497 (D.C. Cir.

2004).

USCA Case #15-7073 Document #1634609 Filed: 09/08/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 15-7073 September Term, 2015

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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

2

USCA Case #15-7073 Document #1634609 Filed: 09/08/2016 Page 2 of 2