Court Opinion

ID: 9917052
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-01-11 16:01:14.552249+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:01:00.192457
License: Public Domain

United States Court of Appeals
                             FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                       ____________
No. 23-5081                                                 September Term, 2023
                                                                         1:22-cv-00941-CJN
                                                       Filed On: January 11, 2024
Jean Dufort Baptichon,

              Appellant

       v.

United States Department of Education and
WMU/Cooley Law School,

              Appellees

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

       BEFORE:       Henderson, Childs, and Pan, 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 order filed March 17, 2023,
be affirmed as to appellee Thomas M. Cooley Law School. The district court correctly
dismissed appellant’s claims against Cooley for lack of personal jurisdiction. See
Erwin-Simpson v. AirAsia Berhad, 985 F.3d 883, 888-89 (D.C. Cir. 2021). Appellant
has failed to establish any contacts with the District of Columbia that would support the
district court’s exercise of either general or specific jurisdiction over Cooley. See id.
(construing D.C. Code. § 13-334 and § 13-422); D.C. Code § 13-423(a)-(b); Livnat v.
Palestinian Auth., 851 F.3d 45, 57 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (holding that “[c]onclusory
statements” do not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden of showing pertinent jurisdictional facts
to survive a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (quotation omitted)). The
district court also did not abuse its discretion in failing to sua sponte transfer appellant’s
claims against Cooley. See Hill v. U.S. Air Force, 795 F.2d 1067, 1070-71 (D.C. Cir.
1986); 28 U.S.C. § 1631.

        Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.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
                 United States Court of Appeals
                            FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT
                                     ____________
No. 23-5081                                                September Term, 2023

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

                                                         FOR THE COURT:
                                                         Mark J. Langer, Clerk

                                                 BY:     /s/
                                                         Daniel J. Reidy
                                                         Deputy Clerk

                                          Page 2