Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caDC-14-07132/USCOURTS-caDC-14-07132-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 220
Nature of Suit: Foreclosure
Cause of Action: 

---

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-7132 September Term, 2015

1:09-cv-00030-EGS

Filed On: August 5, 2016

James Covington and Alfreda Turnbow,

Appellants

v.

JPMorgan Chase & Co., as successor to

Washington Mutual Bank and Deutsche Bank

National Trust Company,

Appellees

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

BEFORE: Rogers, Kavanaugh, and Srinivasan, 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 orders denying appellants’

discovery requests and granting summary judgment to appellees be affirmed. 

Appellants have not shown that the district court abused its discretion in denying their

discovery requests. See Freedom Watch v. NSA, 783 F.3d 1340, 1345 (D.C. Cir.

2015). The district court correctly concluded that the loan modification agreement was

invalid because it purported to modify a contract without the consent of all of the

contracting parties. See Nyhus v. Travel Mgmt. Corp., 466 F.2d 440, 445 (D.C. Cir.

1972). As for appellees’ right to enforce the note, under D.C. law, the holder of a note

indorsed in blank is normally entitled to enforce the instrument. Chase Plaza

Condominium Ass’n v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 98 A.3d 166, 169-70 (D.C. 2014);

see also D.C. Code § 28:3-301 (holder of an instrument is entitled to enforce it); § 28:3-

205. Appellants have presented no evidence capable of rebutting the district court’s

USCA Case #14-7132 Document #1628738 Filed: 08/05/2016 Page 1 of 2
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT

____________

No. 14-7132 September Term, 2015

conclusions that appellees own the mortgage loan and hold the note, nor have they

shown that any of the related documents are fraudulent. Appellants’ remaining

arguments fail, either because they were not raised in the opening brief and are

therefore forfeited, see Fox v. Gov’t of the District of Columbia, 794 F.3d 25, 29 (D.C.

Cir. 2015), because they were insufficiently developed and are therefore forfeited, see

Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 2005), or because appellants

have proffered no evidence indicating that summary judgment was inappropriate, see

Liberty Lobby, Inc. v. Dow Jones & Co., Inc., 838 F.2d 1287, 1292 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

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

Page 2

USCA Case #14-7132 Document #1628738 Filed: 08/05/2016 Page 2 of 2