Josephat Mua v. California Casualty Indemnity


UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion for leave to file [999743475-2], denying Motion for leave to file [999696536-2]; denying Motion to vacate [999696555-2]; denying Motion for abeyance (Local Rule 12(d)) [999670359-2] Originating case number: 8:14-cv-03810-PJM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999763824]. Mailed to: Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas. [15-2048]

Download PDF
Appeal: 15-2048 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 1 of 3 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-2048 JOSEPHAT MUA; FRANCOISE VANDENPLAS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, v. CALIFORNIA CASUALTY INDEMNITY EXCHANGE; MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District Judge. (8:14-cv-03810-PJM) Submitted: February 25, 2016 Before SHEDD and Circuit Judge. HARRIS, Circuit Decided: Judges, February 29, 2016 and DAVIS, Senior Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Josephat Mua, Francoise Vandenplas, Appellants Pro Se. Thomas V. McCarron, James Olin Spiker, IV, SEMMES, BOWEN & SEMMES, Baltimore, Maryland; Joel D. Seledee, MARSDEN & SELEDEE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 15-2048 Doc: 47 Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 2 of 3 PER CURIAM: Appellants, Josephat Mua and Francoise Vandenplas, appeal the district court’s order: claims stemming (“CCIE”) failure from non-renewal to pay participation in (1) dismissing with prejudice their California of an Casualty automobile benefits, and a state related Indemnity insurance Marsden court & Exchange’s policy Seledee, action seeking and LLC’s the recovery of money CCIE wrongfully paid Appellants for property damage; and (2) dismissing without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction Appellants’ claims for non-property damage benefits payable under the insurance policy. Appellants have filed several motions with this court, including a motion to place this appeal in abeyance pending resolution of the related state court case, and a motion for leave to file a motion to vacate the district court’s judgment. Appellants’ failure to challenge on appeal the district court’s dispositive holdings amounts to a waiver of appellate review over those holdings. will limit its review to See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“The Court the issues raised in the informal brief.”); United States v. Al-Hamdi, 356 F.3d 564, 571 n.8 (4th Cir. 2004) (“It is a well settled rule that contentions not raised in the abandoned.”). argument section of the opening brief are To the extent Appellants seek to raise new claims against Appellees, Appellants may not do so for the first time 2 Appeal: 15-2048 Doc: 47 on appeal. Filed: 02/29/2016 Pg: 3 of 3 See Robinson v. Wix Filtration Corp. LLC, 599 F.3d 403, 411 n.10 (4th Cir. 2010) (“We have previously made it clear that the failure to present an argument to the district court constitutes waiver before this court.”); Muth v. United States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (noting that issues raised for the first time on appeal are waived unless plain error or a fundamental miscarriage of justice would result). Because we find no reversible error by the district court, we deny the pending motions and affirm the district court’s judgment. Mua v. Cal. Cas. Indem. Exch., No. 8:14-cv-03810-PJM (D. Md. filed Aug. 17, 2015, entered Aug. 19, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?