Court Opinion

ID: 9410493
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 16:01:13.206119+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.221350
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-7064                                                 September Term, 2022
                                                                      1:20-cv-00453-CKK
                                                       Filed On: July 21, 2023
Tiffani Jones,

                 Appellant

       v.

NVR Incorporation, trading as Ryan Homes,

                 Appellee

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

       BEFORE:         Henderson, Walker, 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 briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R. App. P.
34(a)(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34(j). Upon consideration of the foregoing, the motion to
amend the appendix, the response thereto, the lodged supplement to the appendix,
and the motion to appoint counsel, it is

        ORDERED that the motion to amend the appendix be denied. Nevertheless,
insofar as the lodged supplemental appendix includes “papers and exhibits filed in the
district court,” which are part of the record on appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 10(a), the
court has considered those materials. It is

      FURTHER ORDERED that the motion to appoint counsel be denied. In civil
cases, appellants are not entitled to appointment of counsel when they have not
demonstrated sufficient likelihood of success on the merits. It is

       FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s February 26,
2020 minute order granting appellee’s motion for extension of time to file its motion to
dismiss; April 29, 2021 order granting appellee’s motion for extension of time to file its
motion in limine and motion for summary judgment; March 29, 2022 order granting in
part appellee’s motion in limine and motion to strike; and March 29, 2022 order granting
appellee’s motion for summary judgment be affirmed.
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                      ____________
No. 22-7064                                                September Term, 2022

       Appellant has not shown that either order granting an extension of time was an
abuse of the district court’s broad discretion to manage its docket. See, e.g., Banner
Health v. Price, 867 F.3d 1323, 1334 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Nor has appellant shown that
the district court abused its discretion by prohibiting her from relying on expert
evidence, based on the court’s determination that she failed to comply with her
disclosure obligations under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26 and that the failure was
neither substantially justified nor harmless. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 37(c)(1); see also
Wannall v. Honeywell, Inc., 775 F.3d 425, 429-30 (D.C. Cir. 2014); Hull v. Eaton Corp.,
825 F.2d 448, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1987) (“The determination of an appropriate discovery
sanction is left to the discretion of the trial court.”).

       Finally, appellant has not shown that the district court erred in granting appellee’s
motion for summary judgment on the claims for breach of warranty, breach of contract,
and strict liability. Contrary to appellant’s assertions, she has not pointed to sufficient
evidence for a reasonable jury to find that the shower leak was caused by a defect in
the home’s plumbing system, or that there were structural defects as defined in the
limited warranty. And even assuming that there was a covered defect, appellant has
not pointed to sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that appellee breached its
obligation to remedy the shower leak and related damage. Indeed, appellant admittedly
refused to allow further remediation and repair work by appellee. As to the strict liability
claim, appellant has not pointed to sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find that
her family’s alleged health problems were caused by mold in the home. See Wetzel v.
Capital City Real Estate, LLC, 73 A.3d 1000, 1006 (D.C. 2013); Young v. Burton, 354 F.
App’x 432, 433 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

        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